IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


V 


K< 


% 


=y= 

1.25 


21    12.5 


■so 


mtf 


^6  |3^    1122 

i  -^  IIIIIM 

lUUt- 

llllim 

11.4 


1.6 


—    6" 


"/}. 


V 


/A 


V 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  M5S0 

(716)872-4503 


'<i> 


3^ 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHfVJ/ICIVIH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Canadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


Technical  and  Bibliographic  Notes/Notes  techniques  et  bibliographiques 


The  c 
to  the 


The  Institute  has  attempted  to  obtain  the  best 
original  copy  available  for  filming.  Features  of  this 
copy  which  may  be  bibliographically  unique, 
which  may  alter  any  of  the  images  in  the 
reproduction,  or  which  may  significantly  change 
the  usual  method  of  filming,  are  checked  below. 


n 


D 


D 


D 
D 


D 


n 


Coloured  covers/ 
Couverture  de  couleur 


I      I    Covers  damaged/ 


Couverture  endommag6e 


Covers  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Couverture  restaur6e  et/ou  pelliculde 


I      I    Cover  title  missing/ 


Le  titre  de  couverture  manque 


I      I    Coloured  maps/ 


Cartes  g^ographiques  en  couleur 

Coloured  ink  (i.e.  other  than  blue  or  black)/ 
Encre  de  couleur  (i.e.  autre  que  bleue  ou  noire) 


I      I    Coloured  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 


Planches  et/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 

Bound  with  other  material/ 
Reli6  avec  d'autres  documents 

Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

Lareliure  serrde  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  le  long  de  la  marge  intdrieure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certaines  pages  blanches  ajout6es 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  dans  le  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  dtait  possible,  ces  pages  n'ont 
pas  6t6  filmdes. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentaires  suppldmentaires; 


L'Institut  a  microfilm^  le  meilleur  exemplaire 
qu'il  lui  a  6t6  possible  de  se  procurer.  Les  details 
de  cet  exemplaire  qui  sont  peut-dtre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibliographique,  qui  peuvent  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvent  exiger  une 
modification  dans  la  m6thode  normale  de  filmage 
sont  indiquds  ci-dessous. 


□    Coloured  pages/ 
Pages  de  couleur 

□    Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagdes 

r~~|    Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 


D 


Pages  restaur^es  et/ou  pelliculdes 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxe< 
Pages  ddcolor^es,  tachet6es  ou  piqu6es 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  d6tach6es 

Showthrough/ 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Quality  in6gale  de  I'impression 

Includes  supplementary  materii 
Comprend  du  materiel  supplementaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seule  Edition  disponibie 


Theii 
possi 
of  thi 
filmir 


Origii 
begin 
the  la 
sion, 
other 
first  I 
sion, 
or  ilk 


I      I  Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 

I      I  Pages  detached/ 

r^  Showthrough/ 

rri  Quality  of  print  varies/ 

I      I  Includes  supplementary  material/ 

I      I  Only  edition  available/ 


Theli 
shall 
TINU 
whici 

Maps 
differ 
entire 
begin 
right 
requi 
meth 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  best  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partiellement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc.,  ont  6t6  filmdes  d  nouveau  de  fapon  d 
obtenir  la  meilleure  image  possible. 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  filmd  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqud  ci-dessous. 

10X  14X  18X  22X 


26X 


30X 


^ 


12X 


16X 


20X 


24X 


28X 


32X 


The  copy  filmed  here  hes  been  reproduced  thanks 
to  the  generosity  of: 

University  of  Toronto  Library 


L'exenr>plaire  film6  fut  reproduit  grfice  d  la 
g6n6rosit6  de: 

University  of  Toronto  Library 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  6t6  reproduites  avec  le 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  et 
de  la  nettetd  de  I'exemplaire  filmd.  et  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmage. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  iront  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  ia  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimde  sont  film6s  en  commenpant 
par  le  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration,  soit  par  le  second 
plat,  selon  le  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  film6s  en  commenpant  par  la 
premidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'illustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  — »-  (meaning  "CON- 
TINUED"), or  the  symbol  V  (meaning  'END"), 
whichever  applies. 

Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  large  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required.  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Un  des  symboles  suivants  apparaitra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  chaque  microfiche,  selon  le 
cas:  le  symbole  — ►  signifie  "A  SUIVRE",  le 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 

Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  dtre 
film6s  d  des  taux  de  rdduction  diff6rents. 
Lorsque  le  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  cllchd.  it  est  film6  i  partir 
de  Tangle  sup6rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  le  nombre 
d'images  ndcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mdthode. 


1 

2 

3 

1 

2 

3 

r^  ♦   : 

• 

• 

men  ot  tbc  muc 


JEREMIAH 


HIS  LIFE  AND  TIMES 


BY 


Rev.  T.  K.  Cheyne,  M.A.,  D.D. 

Oriel  Professor  of  the  Interpretation  of  Holy  Scripture  at  Oxford, 
Canon  of  Rochester 


FLEMING  H.  REVELL  COMPANY 
New  York  Chicago  Toronto 

Publishers  of  Evangelical  Literature 


L.     ■    >  ■■-■'  --^     , 

■•J 


// 


^(y>  R  A  R  p. 


\ 


N^^*. 


NOV  1  0  B<^      U 


■«>-«»- ,  .-r— «'»'''' 


TO 

PROF.  EBERHARD  SCHRADER, 

*'Tkb  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old  Tv«rA]fiMT,* 

A  rOREMOrT  PUPIL  OF  EWALD 

AND     PIONEER     OP     ASSYRIOLOOT, 

AS  A  MEMORIAL 

or    PLEASANT    PERSONAL    INTBKGOUIM 

IN  FORMER  DAYS. 


PREFACE. 


^*- 


JEREMIAH  is  one  of  the  central  figures  of  an  exciting  period 
which  has  to  be  reconstructed  by  a  combined  effort  of  criticism 
and  imagination.  It  is  nearly  twenty  years  since  I  first  began 
to  prepare  for  a  commentary  on  Jeremiah,  and  since  then  the 
book  and  its  author  have  retained  an  interest  for  me.  The  ex- 
position in  the  "  Pulpit  Commentary  "  (1883-1885)  is  a  most 
fragmentary  realization  of  my  original  plan,  and  I  was  glad  to 
take  up  the  pen  once  more.  In  the  summer  of  1887  I  preached 
a  course  of  sermons  on  Jeremiah  in  Rochester  Catliedral,  simi- 
lar to  a  course  which  I  have  printed  on  Elijah.*  These  sermons 
are  the  germ  of  the  present  volume. 

In  these  two  biographies  I  have  entered  on  a  field  which  is 
new  to  me — the  literary  and  yet  critical  treatment  of  those  Old 
Testament  narratives  which  from  my  childhood  I  have  loved. 
With  faltering  steps  I  have  sought  to  follow  Arthur  Stanley, 
who  regarded  it  as  his  mission  "so  to  delineate  the  outward 
events  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  as  that  they  should 
come  home  with  a  new  power  to  those  who  by  long  familiarity 
have  almost  ceased  to  regard  them  as  historical  at  all."  It  is 
hoped  that  this  volume  may  be  an  appropriate  companion  to 
Dr.  Driver's  critical  and  yet  both  "^verent  and  popular  study 
on  the  Life  and  Times  of  Isaiah. 

I  regret  that,  since  Deuteronomy  had  to  be  brought  in  at  all 
hazards,  it  was  impossible  to  discuss  the  question  of  the  text 
of  Jeremiah,  that  of  the  arrangement  of  the  prophecies,  or  that 
of  the  origin  of  Jer.  x.  1-16,  and  (see  p.  168)  1.,  li.  I  should 
now  probably  modify  what  I  have  written  on  these  subjects  in 

I  •<  The  Hallowing  of  Criticism  "  (Hodder  and  Stoughton,  x888)b 


VUI 


PREFACE. 


the  *'  Encyclopaedia  Britannica  "  (art  "Jeremiah  ')•  and  in  the 
'*  Pulpit  Commentary,"  and  should  have  to  discuss  them  in 
connexion  with  the  larger  question  of  the  method  of  the  editor 
of  Jeremiah,  who,  I  suspect,  dealt  more  freely  with  his  material 
(yet  not  so  as  to  injure  its  true  prophetic  inspiration)  than  some 
of  the  other  editors  of  the  prophecies.  I  have  thought  it  best 
on  this  occasion  not  to  assume  more  than  the  most  assured 
results  of  criticism.  The  reader  must  make  allowance  for  the 
narrow  limits  prescribed  to  the  volumes  of  this  series.  The 
Book  of  Jeremiah  itself  is  full  of  exegetical  interest ;  thecharacter 
of  Jeremiah  is  a  fascinating  psychological  problem  ;  the  times 
of  Jeremiah  are  among  the  most  important  in  Old  Testament 
history.  On  each  of  these  subjects  I  have  tried  to  throw  some 
light  ftom  various  sources,  and  at  the  same  time  to  kindle  in 
the  reader  that  same  reverential  sympathy  which  I  hope  I  feel 
myself  for  this  great  prophet 
St^  18, 18M. 


i 

■■i 


CONTENTS. 

M 

PART  I. 

JUDAirS  TRAGEDY  DOWN  TO  THE  DEATH  OP  JOSIAH, 

CHAPTER  I. 

God  Commands  to  Takb  thb  Tkumpbt i 

The  narrative  of  Jeremiah's  call ;  its  biographical  and  spiritnal 
valuCi 

CHAPTER  II. 

Friends  in  Council •      •      •     ij 

Jeremiah  and  his  friends— Reformers  before  the  ReformatiM. 

CHAPTER  III. 

HoPBS  AND  Peaks  quickly  Realized        .       .      .      •      .     ai 

Jeremiah's  early  discourses,  and  the  historical  inferences  war> 
ranted  by  them— The  quiescence  of  the  reforming  party — The 
sign  granted  at  length— The  threatened  S^hian  invasion. 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Morning-cloud  Goodness     ...•••••     37 
The  crisis  and  its  effects— Religious  reaction. 

CHAPTER  V, 

"  He  that  Seekrth,  Findbth  "  ..••••     48 

The  finding  of  the  boolc  of  Divine  instruction— The  national 
covenant — Jeremiah,  a  preacherof  Deuteronomy. 


S  CONTENT!. 

CHAPTER  VL 
Thb  ANasNT  Law  Transfobiibd 


60 


The  publication  of  tht  first  Scripture,  its  significance— Tbe  Iead> 
ing  ideas  of  Deuteronomy— The  eiiects  ot  Um  racognitioa  of 
Uie  Lawlsook. 

CHAPTER  VIL 

Fraud  or  Needful  Illusion?     ..•••••     69 

Criticism  of  the  narrative  in  a  Kings  xxiL— The  Mosaic  author* 
ship  of  the  Lawboolc,  not  tenable — Reasons  for  this— Notes  oa 
the  allusions  to  Egypt  in  Deuteronomy,  and  on  the  finding  of 
the  Lawboolc. 


CHAPTER  Via 

"  His  Remembrance  is  Like  Music  "  (Ecclus.  xlix.  i)  .       . 

David's  "last  words"  fulfilled  in  Josiah— His  thirteen  golden 
years  after  the  great  covenant— Jeremiah's  comparative  Happi- 
ness— His  friends  among  the  wise  men — Pharaoh  Neco  profits 
by  the  weakness  of  Assyria— Josiah 's  defeat  at  Megiddo ;  his 
death— The  national  mourning— The  tragedy  of  bis  life,  and  of 
Israel's  bistoiy. 


•7 


PART  II. 
THB  CLOSE  OF  JUDAHS  TRAGEDY, 

CHAPTER  L 

The  Clouds  Rbtiten  after  the  Rain       .      .      .      •       •   loa 

Consequences   of  Josiah's  death— Jeremiah's  changed  attitude 
towards  Deuteronomy— His  visit  to  Anathoth. 


CHAPTER  IL 
On  the  Verge  of  Martyrdom    . 


ti4 


Jeremiah's  sermon  in  the  Temple— Tbe  fate  of  Shlloh—The 
prophet's  trial  and  acquittal— Tbe  martyrdom  of  Uriah. 

CHAPTER  IIL 

Keep  the  Munition,  Watch  the  Way  !   .      .       .       •      .    saj 

Progress  of  Neco — Accession  of  Jehoahaz,  and  soon  after  of 
Jehoiakim — Fall  of  Nineveh — Neco's  defeat  by  Nebuchadrexzar 
— Dread  of  Babylon  at  Jerusalem— Jeremiah's  new  peace  of 
mind— His  propheqr  on  Egypt,  &c. 


OONTfiNTS. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


Thkhb  be  Gods  many.  Lords  'many  •      •      •      •      •    139 

Jeremiah's  verdict   upon   the    later    kings— Nebachadresiar 
crosses  the  border— Duel  between  Jeremiah  andJehoiA^ioii 


CHAPTER  V. 

Bright  Visions  in  the  Death-chambbb 

Jeremiah's  Wartburg  period  and  its  results— The  drought—* The 
problem  of  Israel's  spiritual  condition— The  new  covenant— 
Jehoiakim's  rebellion— The  Rechabites— Two  symbolic  actions 
— Jehoiachin's  captivity— His  character  and  Nebuchadrassar's. 


t4« 


•7 


CHAPTER  VI. 

If  Thou  Hadst  Known,  even  Thou  I .       .       .      •      •      . 

Zedekiah  ;  his  accession  and  character — Ezekiel,  the  prophet  of 
the  exiles — The  lower  prophets  at  home  and  in  Babylonia — Zede« 
kiah's  revolt — First  siege  of  Jerusalem— Imprisonment  of  Jere- 
miah—His  purchase  of  family-property — He  is  again  in  danger 
of  his  life— Cast  into  the  cistern— Ebedmelecb's  hdp— 'Fall  of 
Jerusalem— Book  of  Lamentation. 


^ 


CHAPTER  VIL 

Pastor's  Strange  Farewell  ..;•••• 

Gedaliah  becomes  viceroy— The  prophet  stays  with  him  at  Mil> 
pah— Ishmael's  outrages— Flight  from  Mizpah— MignUioa  kUO 
Egypt— The  heathen  festival— The  stormy  colloquy* 


s8i 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


Per  Crucbm  ad  Lucbm 


Legendary  accounts  of  Jeremiah's  death— His  sufferings  and 
compensations- Jeremiah  compfjred  with  Milton  and  Savonarola 
—The  spring  foreseen  by  the  Israelite  and  the  Italiao  still  fiitura. 


MJ 


\ 


CHRONOLOGICAL  TABLE 
Ifii^ptmttUtuy  to  T«bU  in  Drivtt>t  **/udak''  ik  tki$  uH^ 


685-641  « 

640-639  - 
638-608  . 
608         ^ 

607-597  «. 
597 
596-586  ... 


R^gn  of  Muuusdi. 
Amon. 
losiah. 
Jehoahai. 
Jehoialdn. 
Jehoiachin. 
ZedekidL 


ft 
»• 

M 


M 

n 
n 


•»•  These  dates  are  taken  from  Kamphauen't  "Die  ChioBolocie 
dcr  hebiiUschen  KSnige"  (Bonn,  1883). 


!! 


PART   !• 

/UDAH*S  TRAGEDY  DOWN  70  THE  DEATH  OP 

JOSIAH, 


OHAPTEB  I. 

GOD  COMMANDS  TO  TAKE  THE  TRUMPET. 

The  narrative  of  Jeremiah's  call ;  its  biographical  and  spiritual  value 

The  peculiar  importance  of  Jeremiah,  both  as  a  man  and  as  an 
actor  in  an  unique  tragedy,  is  too  visible  upon  every  page  of  his 
writings  to  need  explanation  at  the  outset.  His  life  resembles 
no  other  life ;  his  character  and  his  experiences  are  full  of 
surprises  which  stimulate  thought  on  great  moral  and  religious 
problems.  The  introductory  paragraph  (i.  i),  due  perhaps  to 
his  faithful  secretary  Baruch,  is  of  itself  of  a  somewhat  startl'ng 
nature.  Is  it  not  strange  that  the  herald  of  the  Church  of  the 
New  Covenant  should  have  been  a  hereditary  member  of  the 
sacerdotal  order?  There  is  nothing  however  to  indicate  that 
he  ever  performed  priestly  functions.  Ezekiel  very  possibly 
did ;  he  was  not  called  so  young  as  Jeremiah,  and  was  evidently 
well  acquainted  with  and  keenly  interested  in  the  traditions  of 
the  priesthood.  Still,  Jeremiah  had  a  true  priestly  heart  in  the 
deepest  sense  of  the  word.  By  intense  sympathy,  he  so  iden- 
tified himself  with  his  people  as  to  feel  their  sins  and  sufferings 
his  own,  and  bear  them  on  his  heart  before  his  God.  He  was 
a  priest,  not  merely  by  birth,  but  by  the  grace  of  God  ;  and  his 
life,  as  a  critical  view  of  the  Psalter  proves,  was  a  fertile  seed 
of  similar  Christ-like  self-forgetfulness. 

It  was  not  all  at  once,  indeed,  that  Jeremiah  attained  the 
heights  of  saintly  heroism.  There  was  a  time  when  no  more 
than  Moses  (Exod.  iv.  13)  could  he  deny  that  he  had  sought  to 
evade  a  pastor's  grave  responsibilit  les  (comp.  xvii.  16),  when  he 
agonized,  as  in  a  Gethsemane,  confessing  the  divinity  of  th« 

8 


1: 


;  I 


3  JEREMIAH. 

impulse  which  stirred  him,  but  painfully  conscious  of  his  own 
natural  infirmity.    He  tells  us  so  himself  in  his  book,  parts  of 
which  might  fitly  be  called  "  The  Confessions  of  Jeremiah  ; " 
for,  admitting  that  later  experiences  may  have  coloured  the  form 
of  the  introductory  narrative,  a  solid  substratum  of  fact  must, 
even    on  psychological  grounds,  be   assumed.     It  was  the 
thirteenth  year  of  King  Josiah  when  three  distinct  heavenly 
voices  reached  the  youthful  Jeremiah — reached  him,  that  is, 
not  from  a  God  without,  but  from  the  God  within  him ;  or,  in 
Western  language,  he  passed  through  three  separate,  though 
connected,  phases  of  consciousness,  which  he  could  not  but 
ascribe  to  a  direct  Divine  influence.    I  cannot  say  more  about 
this  belief  of  Jeremiah's  in  this  place ;  those  who  will,  may 
accuse  what  I  have  said  of  vagueness ;  the  phenomena  of 
Biblical  religion  cannot  be  brought  under  the  clear,  cold  defi- 
nitions of  Western  orthodoxy.     A   fresh    and    openminded 
re-examination  of  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  is  urgently 
called  for,  and  a  sketch  of  the  life  and  times  of  a  single  prophet 
is  not  the  place  to  insert  one  of  the  chapters  in  such  an 
exposition.     Suffice  it  to  say  that  Jeremiah  must  have  had 
inner  experiences  at  a  still    earlier  age,  which  made  these 
phases  of  consciousness  in  a  psychological  sense  possible.    A 
veil    may  conceal  them   from   view,  but  of  what  prophetic 
experiences  (in  the  wider  sense)  must  not  the  same  confession, 
to  some  extent  at  least,  be  made  ?    We  may  at  least  be  sure 
that,  as  with  St.  Paul,  so  with  Jeremiah,  there  was  a  "gracious 
proportion  between  the  revelation  vouchsafed  and  the  mental 
state  of  the  person  receiving  it."    In  both  cases  there  is  some 
material  for  conjecture,  but  I  doubt  if  the  main  object  of  this 
book  will  be  served  by  an  attempt  which  might  reasonably 
enough  be  made  in  a  critical  survey  of  Old  Testament  prophecy. 
I  prefer  therefore  to  confine  myself  now  to  the  distinct  state- 
ments of  the  Biblical  record. 

The  first  Divine  truth  of  which  Jeremiah  became  conscious 
may  be  summed  up  thus— Jehovah  hath  foreordained  thee  to 
be  a  prophet  *  (Jer.  i.  5).    To  understand  this  we  must  read  the 

«  Observe— /<?  be  a  prophet— noi  a  Nazirite  as  well  (Plumptre).  Tne  two 
classes  are  evidently  distinguished  (Amos  ii.  11,  la).  Jeremiah's  sorrowful 
experiences  may  have  made  him  j.n  ascetic,  but  such  an  one  needed  no 
outward  rules.  Nor,  probably,  was  his  life,  even  after  his  call,  one  of 
unmixed  gloom. 


GOD  COMMANDS  TO  TAKE  THE  TRUMPET. 


139th  Psalm.  Every  man's  career  is  written  in  the  book  of 
God  ;  but,  if  possible,  there  are  some  careers  more  legibly 
written  than  others.  To  some  it  is  only  given  to  see  God's 
".purpose"  (Ixxiii.  24)  concerning  them  at  the  end  of  life; 
while  others,  like  Abraham  (Gen.  xviii.  19),  Cyrus  (Isa.  xlv.  4), 
and  Jeremiah,  are  assured  from  the  very  first  that  the  personal 
God  has  distinguished  and  selected  them  (J knew  thee^  means 
all  this)  to  perform  a  special  work  for  Him.  It  inspires  them 
with  double  energy  and  enthusiasm,  and  is  a  part  of  the  secret 
of  their  success.  The  belief  in  predestination,  as  Ewald  truly 
observes,  was  a  "  powerful  lever  in  Hebrew  prophecy  * ;  "  and 
though  "prophet,"  "religious  reformer,"  and  (much  less) 
"  saint,"  are  not  absolutely  synonymous  terms,  we  may  well 
appropriate  the  lesson  that  (in  the  words  of  Milman)  "  he  who 
is  not  predestined,  who  does  not  declare,  who  does  not  believe 
himself  predestinated  as  the  author  of  a  great  religious  move- 
ment, he  in  whom  God  is  not  manifestly,  sensibly,  avowedly 
working  out  his  pre-established  designs,  will  never  be  saint  or 
reformer."'  This  did  not,  however,  become  Jeremiah's  con- 
viction without  an  attempt  at  resistance. 

And  I  said,  Alas,  O  Lord  Jehovah  !  behold,  I  cannot  speaks 
for  I  am  {still)  young  {like  a  young  man);  i.  6.  It  is  a  cry  of 
pain.  Jeremiah  is  too  warmhearted  to  regard  with  any  com- 
placence the  office  of  a  censor  ;  it  hurts  him  to  say  that  which 
will  give  pain  to  others.  He  would  fain  live  at  peace  with  all 
men,  and  one  of  his  saddest  complaints  in  later  life  is  this — 
Woe  is  me,  my  mother,  that  thou  hast  borne  me,  with  whom  all 
the  world  has  strife  and  contention  (xv.  10).  It  is  also  a  cry  of 
alarm.  How  can  one  who  is  not  yet  of  mature  age — in  Oriental 
society  a  young  man  has  no  rdle  to  play — expect  to  be  listened 
to,  •specially  by  those  who  have  been  already  fascinated  by 
more  flattering  orators?  And  even  if  his  credentials  were 
accepted  and  his  prophetic  message  received,  is  it  not  too 
likely  that,  through  the  malice  of  those  whom  he  provokes,  his 
career  will  be  cut  short  when  it  has  scarcely  begun  ? 

And  so  a  man  uniquely  qualified  to  promote  it  was  well  nigh 
lost  to  the  cause  of  spiritual  religion.    There  were  hundreds  of 

•  "  Die  Lehre  der  Bibel  von  Gott,"  ii.  ao8. 

•  "  History  of  Latin  Christianity,"  i.  112.  Perhaps  some  may  wish  the 
word  "  saint "  away  from  this  fine  passage  ;  for  are  not  all  Christians  called 
to  be  (not,  to  become)  saints  (/cXfjroi  ayioi)  ? 


JEREMIAH. 


ail 


Stationary  and  unprogressive  religionists  who  exercised  the 
sacred  office  of  prophet ;  there  were  few  indeed  to  be  compared 
with  Jeremiah.  There  were  Zephaniah  and  Habakkuk,  and  we 
shall  be  indebted  to  these  prophets  later  on  for  illustrations 
but,  if  we  may  judge  from  Jeremiah's  account,  the  main  drift 
of  prophetic  influence  was  downwards  and  not  upwards.  The 
young  man  is  only  too  conscious  of  this,  and  in  his  pain  and 
alarm  almost  makes  the  "great  refusal"— to  apply  once  more 
the  phrase  (Dante,  "  Inf."  iii.  60)  which  has  been  so  variously 
interpreted.  His  first  impulse  was  insufficient  to  carry  him 
away,  and  so  the  God  of  revelation  caused  a  second,  which, 
translated  into  words,  could  be  expres  led  thus — 

Say  nott  I  am  {still)  young j  for  to  whomsoever  I  send  thee^ 
thou  must  gOf  and  whatsoever  I  command  thee^  thou  must  speak. 
Be  not  afraid  because  of  themj  for  I  am  with  thee  to  deliver 
thee,  saithfehovah  (i.  7,  8). 

God  had  his  own  method  for  overcoming  Jeremiah's  hesi- 
tancy. First,  he  heightened  the  young  man's  consciousness  of 
a  Divine  call.  He  made  him  feel  that  the  work  to  which  he 
was  summoned  was  not  his  own  but  God's— that  the  youth 
would  be  lost  in  his  message.  How  could  he  be  disobedient 
to  the  voice  which  came  indeed  from  above,  but  which  he 
heard  within  himself?  The  lion  roareth — who  will  not  fear  t 
the  Lordfehovah  hath  spoken,  who  can  but  prophesy  t  (Amos  iii. 
8 ;  c£  Hos.  xi.  10).  The  path  of  duty  was  the  path  of  safety — 
above  all  for  one  called  to  be  a  prophet.  As  another  propheti- 
cally-minded writer  says  in  lyric  verse — 

I  have  set  Jehovah  before  me  continually ; 

With  him  at  my  right  hand,  I  cannot  be  moved  (Psa.  xvi.  8). 

Did  Jeremiah  think  of  God's  early  promise  of  deliverance,  as 
he  went  through  his  last  brief  agony  ?  Did  his  heart  tell  him 
that  God  could  be  better  than  his  promise^  and  even  in  death 
could  "deliver"  him  from  the  songless,  praiseless  world  of  the 
shades  ?  But  we  must  not  anticipate  too  much,  though  here  as 
elsewhere  it  is  true  that  "coming  events  cast  their  shadow 
before." 
While  Jeremiah  is  pondering,  a  third  voice  reaches  him, — 
Behold  I  put  (or,  I  have  put)  my  words  in  thy  mouth  ^  9) ; 
that  is,  whenever  the  occasion  to  profdMuy  arises,  Jehovah  will 
supply  the  fitting  words,  just  as  Jesus  Christ  said  to  Hit  dis- 


M^ 


GOD  COMMANDS  TO  TAKE  THE  TRUMPET. 


s 


ciples,  Wh/n  ihey  deliver  you  up^  be  not  overcareful^for  it  ii 
not  ye  that  speakt  but  the  Spirit  of  your  Father  who  speaketh 
in  you  (Matt.  x.  20).  But  how  is  this  ?  Does  the  Biblical 
record  sanction  the  later  Hellenistic  view  of  inspiration,  which 
impressed  itself  so  firmly  on  traditional  theology,  that,  as 
Hooker  says,  "  so  oft  as  God  employed  them  (the  prophets)  in 
this  heavenly  work,  they  neither  spake  nor  wrote  any  word  of 
their  own,  but  uttered  syllable  by  syllable  as  the  Spirit  put  it 
into  their  mouths,  no  otherwise  than  the  harp  or  the  lute  doth 
give  a  sound  according  to  the  discretion  of  his  hands  that 
holdeth  and  striketh  it  with  skill "  *  ?  No ;  this  would  be  to 
degrade  Jeremiah  to  the  level  of  a  fLovm  or  a  wpo^^rtis  (Plato, 
"Timaeus,"  72  B),  or — since  we  are  speaking  of  a  Semitic  and 
not  an  Aryan  religion— of  an  Arabian  hdhin  whose  personality 
is  entirely  absorbed  in  that  of  the  genius  or  divinity  who  speaks 
through  him.*  Jeremiah's  book  is  too  full  of  human  nature  to 
allow  us  to  imagine  this  for  a  moment.  /  have  put  my  words 
in  thy  mouthy  cannot,  of  course,  mean  anything  poor  or 
commonplace.  But  who  can  say  that  such  a  paraphrase  as 
this  gives  an  unworthy  or  inadequate  meaning — "  I  promise 
never  to  leave  thee  in  uncertainty  as  to  thy  message ;  I  will 
guide  and  overrule  the  natural  promptings  of  thy  heart  and 
intellect  as  that  thou  shalt  convey  the  only  true  conception  of 
my  will  which  the  language  can  express  or  the  people  of  Israel 
comprehend." 

But  this  is  not  all.    The  voice  adds — 

See^  I  set  thee  in  charge  this  day  over  the  nations  and  over 
the  kingdoms ^  to  pluck  up  and  to  break  down^  to  destroy  and  to 
overthrow^  to  build  and  to  piant^  (i.  10). 

It  may  seem  strange  that  Jeremiah  could  thus  early  realize 


*  "Works,"ed.  Keble,  iii.  66a ;  comp.  Philo,  II.  417,  and  other  passages 
Lee's  "  Inspiration,"  zst  ed.  pp.  54-57.  Hooker,  however,  does  not,  like 

Philo,  represent  unconsciousness  as  an  essential  condition  of  the  prophetic 
inspiration.  According  to  him,  the  prophets  both  sympathize  with  and 
understand  the  words  committed  to  them;  according  to  Philo,  "the 
understanding  goes  away  from  home"  (l^otct^Erat  6  vovf). 

•  See  Wellhausen,  "  Skizzen  und  Vorarbeiten,"  Heft  3,  p.  133. 

3  Sirach  quotes  this  passage  in  his  eulogy  of  great  men,  but  apparently 
explains  it,  in  the  sense  suggested  by  Jer.  xxxi.  28,  of  the  pulling  down 
and  building  up  of  IsraeL  In  the  original  context,  it  applies  at  least  aa 
much  to  the  non-Israelitish  world  as  to  Israel. 


'! 


11 


I 


6  JEREMIAH. 

the  wide  range  appointed   for  his  ministry,  and  some  will 
suspect  that,  writing  perhaps  twenty-three  years  afterwards,  he 
may  have  transferred  his  later  conviction  to  those  early  days 
when  the  state  of  his  own  country  must  have  been  the  absorb- 
ing theme  of  his  meditation.    Modern  parallels  to  such  a  case 
will  at  once  suggest  themselves — how  constantly  for  instance 
Goethe  violated  strict  historical  truth  in   re-editing  and  re- 
arranging his  various  works  1    But  why  need  we  go  beyond  the 
king  of  the  Hebrew  prophets?     If  at  the  opening  of   his 
ministry  Isaiah  had  really  become  certain  (see  Isa.  vi.  9,  10) 
that  his  preaching  would  only  confirm  his  people  in  its  blind 
obstinacy,  could  he  have  had  courage  to  work  as  cheerfully  and 
as  sympathetically  as  he  did  ?    Must  not  his  later  experience 
have  cast  a  deep  shadow  over  his  recollections  of  the  past  ? 
Psychologically,  this  is  quite  conceivable  ;  and  it  is  certain  that 
the  prophets  wgre  in  no  hurry  to  express  their  burning  thoughts 
and  words  in  literary  style.    At  any  rate,  it  seems  more  than 
probable  that  the  phraseology  of  Jer.  i.  10,  12  is  modelled  upon 
a  passage  in  one  of  Jeremiah's  subsequent  prophecies  (xxxi. 
28),  and  these  verses  cannot  be  taken  alone — the  whole  context 
uiust  equally  have  been  affected  by  the  prophet's  later  ex- 
perience.*   And  yet — may  not  i/te  truths  which  underlie  this 
verse  have  been  already  present  to  the  mind  of  Jeremiah, 
though  he  may  have  not   fully  realized  their  application  to 
his  own  case  ?    For  what  do  the  solemn  words,  /  set  thee  in 
charge  over  the  nations,  mean  ?    Surely  this — that  it  is  not  the 
necessary  result  of  certain  physical  laws  when  an  institution,  or 
a  dynasty,  or  a  people,  is  overthrown  and  perishes.    The  forces 
of  nature  are,  according  to  this  passage,  but  ministers  of 
Jehovah,  "fulfilling  His  word."    The  one  absolute  Power  in 
the  universe  is  God's  *'  wisdom,"  or  thought,  or  purpose,  or 
word — a  Power  which,  both  in  the  sphere  of  creation  and  in 
that  of  government,  has  two  aspects — a  destructive  and  a  con- 
structive, so  that  the  world  is  a  mysterious  scene  of  blended 
production  and  destruction.    Between  this  great  Power  and 
ordinary  mankind  the  prophet  is  the  link  ;  he  has  in  a  certain 
sense  to  co-operate  with  God  by  pronouncing  words  which  are 
in  a  secondary  sense  forces. 

■  Possibly,  too.  w.  18,  19  may  be  a  development  of  xv.  90,  31,  though 
Ewald  regards  the  latter  verses  as  a  (shorte:.ed)  "  repetition  "  of  i.  18,  19. 


^ 


GOD  COMMANDS  TO  TAKE  THE  TRUyPET, 


and  some  will 
;  afterwards,  he 
lose  early  days 
een  the  absorb- 
to  such  a  case 
dy  for  instance 
diting  and  re- 
>  go  beyond  the 
>pening  of  his 
i  Isa.  vi.  9,  lo) 
pie  in  its  blind 
5  cheerfully  and 
ater  experience 
IS  of  the  past  ? 
it  is  certain  that 
urning  thoughts 
lems  more  than 
3  modelled  upon 
rophecies  (xxxi. 
le  whole  context 
phet's  later  ex- 
'ch  underlie  this 
id  of  Jeremiah, 
r  application  to 
ds,  /  set  thee  in 
hat  it  is  not  the 
an  institution,  or 
hes.    The  forces 
>ut  ministers  of 
solute  Power  in 
,  or  purpose,  or 
creation  and  in 
ictive  and  a  con- 
cene  of  blended 
reat  Power  and 
\  has  in  a  certain 
words  which  are 


r  XV.  ao,  ax,  though 
ition  "  of  i.  i8,  19. 


••  'Tis  n»t  In  me  to  give  or  take  away, 

But  He  who  guides  the  thunder-peals  on  high, 
He  tunes  my  voice,  the  tones  of  His  deep  sway 

Faintly  to  echo  in  the  nether  sky. 
Therefore  I  bid  earth's  glories  set  or  shine. 
And  it  is  so  ;  my  words  are  sacraments  divine."* 

If  Jeremiah  had  already  grasped  the  truth  that  Jehovah  was 
the  God  of  the  whole  earth — and  is  there  any  reason  to  doubt 
this  ? — why  should  he  not  have  had  at  least  a  presentiment  (i) 
that  to  the  world  at  large,  as  well  as  to  Israel,  he  had  a  pro- 
phetic mission  ;  and  (2)  that  if  he  was  called  to  destroy  and  to 
overthrow,  this  was  only  that  he  might,  as  a  fellow-worker  with 
God,  plant  and  build  up  ?  The  former  conviction  without  the 
latter  would  have  been  a  source  of  deepest  anguish.  One  who 
as  a  prophet,  was  set  in  charge  even  over  a  single  nation  needed 
all  the  strength  and  comfort  which  could  be  conveyed  to  him. 
Why  should  not  He,  "  by  whose  holy  inspiration  we  think  those 
things  that  be  good,"  have  suggested  to  Jeremiah's  mind  a 
bright  though  as  yet  vague  vision,  not  of  Israel  alone,  but  also 
of  the  other  nations,  emerging  regenerate  from  the  temporary 
chaos  of  political  ruin.  At  a  later  time  the  vision  reappeared 
(xxxi.  28),  and  became  the  subject  of  earnest  meditation,  though 
doubtless  it  is  for  God's  "  first-born  son,"  Israel,  that  Jeremiat 
is  chiefly  concerned. 

I  have  spoken  of  this  experience  of  the  young  prophet  as  an 
inward  experience.  So  it  mainly  was.  But  it  was  accom 
panied  w'th  imaginations  which  were  as  real  to  him  as  if  they 
had  been  visible  to  the  outward  eye.  They  partook  of  the 
natui;;  of  visions,  but,  unlike  many  recorded  visions,  were  un- 
accompanied, as  we  must  infer,  with  morbid,  moral,  or  physical 
phenomena.  I  mention  this  to  distinguish  them  from  the  vision 
which  attended  the  only  inward  experience  analogous  to  our 
prophet's  with  which  extra-Biblical  history  acquaints  us — the 
vision  of  Mohammed  on  Mount  Hiri.  From  a  historical  point 
of  view,  Mohammed  must  be  called  the  Prophet  of  Islam,  and 
his  prophetic  career  was  introduced  by  a  vision  which  is  alluded 
to  in  the  opening  lines  of  the  96th  Sura  of  the  Korin.  But  the 
mingled  char,  cter  of  Mohammed's  prophetic  ministry  is  fore- 
shadowed by  the  morbid  elements  in  the  phenomena  of  his 
call.    "  From  youth  upwards,"  says  the  late  Professor  Palmer, 

»  Lyra  Apostolica,  cxxiv.,  "Jeremiah"  (by  Keble). 


JEREMIAH. 


1? 


"[Mohammed]  had  suffered  from  a  nervous  disorder  which 
tradition  calls  epilepsy,  but  the  symptoms  of  which  more  closely 
resembled  certain  hysterical  phenomena  well  known  and 
diagnosed  in  the  present  time,  and  which  are  almost  always 
accompanied  with  hallucinations,  abnormal  exercise  of  the 
mental  functions,  and  not  unfrequently  with  a  certain  amount 
of  deception,  both  voluntary  and  otherwise." '  One  cannot, 
however,  be  sure  that  we  have  the  visions  of  the  prophets 
exactly  as  they  were  experienced,  if  they  were  written  down  a 
long  time  afterwards,  and  the  plays  upon  words  which  occur  in 
Jeremiah's  account  of  his  own  visions,*  warn  us  not  to  build  too 
much  on  the  literal  historical  accuracy  of  the  narrative.  It  will 
be  pardonable  if  some  re  ider  should  doubt  whether  Jeremiah 
meant  us  to  believe  that  .le  had  really  had  any  vision  at  all — 
whether  he  does  not  presume  that  his  readers  will  take  these 
so-called  visions  as  pure  literary  fictions,  such  as  have  been 
recognized  in  all  great  literary  periods.  The  decision  depends 
on  the  range  which  each  person  allows  to  the  quality  of  reve- 
rence. For  my  part,  I  prefer  to  believe  that  one  who  is  so 
candid  as  Jeremiah  in  his  descriptions  of  himself  really  did 
experience  a  vision  at  this  crisis  of  his  inner  life,  like  Isaiah 
bf'fore  him ;  but  I  lay  no  stress  upon  this,  because  the  opposite 
view  is  possible,  and  Jeremiah's  principal  object  in  writing 
verses  11-16  of  chap.  i.  is  to  bring  strikingly  before  us 
the  grand  though  not  the  only  themes  of  his  prophetic 
discourses. 

The  first  visionary  experience  of  Jeremiah  is  described  in  the 
words.  And  Jehovah  i>ut  forth  his  hand  and  touched  my  mouth 
(i.  9).  Just  as  God  so  often  employs  the  letter  of  Scripture  as 
the  channel  of  spiritual  illumination,  so  here  He  repeated 
a  scene  in  the  grand  inaugural  vision  of  Isaiah,  because  His 
servant,  by  frequent  study  of  that  revealed  vision,  was  prepared 
to  understand  a  similar  experience.  Jeremiah's  inner  eyes 
were  opened  (2  Kings  vi.  17),  and  he  saw  a  Form,  which  he 
does  not  attempt  to  describe,  approach  him  and  touch  his  lips. 
"What  this  meant  could  only  become  clear  by  the  Divine 
guidance  of  the  prophet's  reasoning  powers.  Isaiah  had  been 
led  to  interpret  a  similar  action,  performed  by  one  of  the  sera* 

»  "The  Qur'an"  (Oxford,  1880),  Part  i.,  Introd.,  p.  tx. 
'  These  plays  upoi.  words  remind  us  of  Amos  viii.  3,  which  was  probacy 
Jeremiah's  model. 


OOD  COMMANDS  TO  TAKE  THE  TRUMPET. 


order  which 
more  closely 
known  and 
most  always 
rcise  of  the 
tain  amount 
One  cannot, 
he  prophets 
tten  down  a 
lich  occur  in 
to  build  too 
tive.  It  will 
er  Jeremiah 
ision  at  all — 
1  take  these 
s  have  been 
ion  depends 
ility  of  reve- 
e  who  is  so 
If  really  did 
,  like  Isaiah 
the  opposite 
t  in  writing 
^  before  us 
s   prophetic 

:ribed  in  the 
td  my  mouth 
Scripture  as 
ie  repeated 
because  His 
iras  prepared 

inner  eyes 
n,  which  he 
)uch  his  lips. 

the  Divine 
ah  had  been 
of  the  sera* 


1  was  probaMy 


phim  of  the  purification  of  his  "unclean  lips"  (Isa.  vl  9); 
Jeremiah,  however,  understands  the  Divine  touch  to  mean  the 
revelation  of  a  truth — the  communication  of  a  message  from 
Jehovah  to  Israel.  No  longer  could  he  complain,  like  Moses, 
of  inability  to  speak ;  He  who  gave  the  theme  would  so  lift  up 
his  whole  being  that  the  most  appropri  :<*.  words  would  rise 
unsought  for  to  his  lips. 

Two  more  visions  are  recorded  in  the  same  chapter,  which 
the  prophet,  with  intuitive  certainty,  interprets-— that  is,  with 
which  he  connects  a  truth  impressed  upon  his  mind  with  Divine 
power.  The  first  is  of  the  rod  of  an  almond  tree  (i.  1 1).  The 
Israelites,  with  the  unconscious  natural  poetry  of  primitive  times, 
called  it  shAqld^  or  the  ^^  wakeful"  tree,  because  it  blossoms 
in  Palestine  as  early  as  January,  when  all  the  rest  of  the  plant- 
world  seem-  asleep.  So,  thought  Jeremiah  (it  was  God  who 
suggested  the  thought),  Jehovah  will  be  wakeful  over  his  wordj 
that  is,  will  break  through  the  winter  of  man's  careless  sleep  by 
a  sudden  but  not  premature  fulfilment  of  the  purpose  which  His 
prophets  have  announced  (comp.  xxxi.  28;  xliv.  27).  The 
second  is  a  seething  cauldron  with  its  front  turned  from  the 
north  (i.  13).  The  fire  of  war  is  a  frequent  image  in  Arabic 
literature.    Thus  one  poet  says — 

"  Their  sternness  remains  unflagging,  though  they  be  roasted. 
Again  and  again  in  War's  most  flaming  furnace ; "  > 

and  another,  speaking  of  fierce  warriors,  long  used  to  the 
helmet— 

"  White  are  our  foreheads  and  worn  ;  for  ever  our  cauldrons  boO : "  * 

in  commenting  on  which  the  scholiast  quotes  a  verse  from 
another  poem  in  which,  still  more  distinctly,  the  boiling  caul- 
dron seems  to  mean  the  desolation  caused  by  war.  In  Isaiah, 
too,  fire  is  an  image  for  war,  but  of  war  regarded  as  a  judgment 
sent  from  Jehovah  (Isa.  ix.  19 ;  x.  17,  18).  The  cauldron  in 
Jeremiah's  vision  is  on  the  point  of  boiling  over,  and  the  seer's 
intuitive  interpretation  (intuitive,  and  therefore  Divinely  sane- 

*  Lyall,  "Ancient  Arabian  Poetiy,"  p.  8;  •'HamAn,"  td.  FVeytag 
p.  13. 1 4. 

•  Lyall,  p^  18 ;  "  HamAsa,"  p.  47,  L  7. 


!    - 

r 

t: 
■ 

j 

■ 

! 

''**"»:, 


lO 


JEREMIAH. 


tioned) »  is,  Out  of  the  north  shall  the  ntil  seetht  (i.e.,  come 
seething),  over  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land  (i.  14).  "The 
evil "  means  that  which  Jeremiah  has  already  learned  to 
expect,  as  a  thinker  trained  in  the  school  of  Amos  and  Isaiah 
— "  the  evil"  which  sin,  when  it  is  mature,  necessarily  produces, 
by  a  law  of  God's  moral  government.  And  why  "out  of  the 
north  "  ?  Does  it  mean  that  the  threatened  invaders  will  be  a 
northern  people  (comp.  v.  15  with  Ezek.  xxxix.  2),  or  simply 
that  the  road  which  they  will  take  will  lead  them  through  the 
north  of  Palestine  ?  We  must  leave  this  question  until  Jere- 
miah's own  prophecies  supply  us  with  the  means  of  answering 
it. 

It  is  needless  to  say  much  more  on  this  opening  chapter,  the 
remainder  of  which  is  of  little  biographical  use  for  this,  the 
earliest  stage  of  Jeremiah's  ministry.  It  contains  three  ideas, 
(i)  That  Jeremiah  is  to  say  out  frankly  and  fearlessly  whatever 
message  may  be  given  him ;  (2)  That  he  will  encounter  great 
opposition  ;  and  (3)  That  Jehovah's  protection  will  render  His 
prophet  invincible.  Two  of  these  ideas  are  repeated  from  the 
first  part  of  the  chapter  ;  the  third  is  one  which  can  hardly 
have  been  realized  by  Jeremiah  as  fully  as  the  words  would 
imply.  I  think  we  shall  gain  something  if  now  and  then  we 
read  the  first  fourteen  verses  by  themselves.  They  give  us  a 
striking  picture  of  what  Jeremiah  was  by  nature,  and  what 
Jehovah  would  have  him  become,  and  will,  I  hope,  prepossess 
us  in  favour  of  the  prophet  md  the  book  which  he  and  his  dis- 
ciples have  left  us.  Shall  we  not  let  this  favourable  bias  have 
full  play,  and  allow  Jeremiah  some  influence  in  forming  our 
character,  remembering  that  "  whoso  receiveth  a  prophet  in  the 
name  of  a  prophet  shall  receive  a  prophet's  reward."  Prophets 
are  few  and  far  between,  even  if  the  term  be  stretched  to  in- 
clude all  great  moral  and  religious  teachers  ;  but  of  those  who 
"  receive  a  prophet,"  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  phrase,  by  em- 
bodying the  truths  which  he  teaches  in  their  life  and  character, 
there  may  and  should  be  many.  We  cannot  all  be  Shake- 
speares,  but  we  can  all  take  up  some  part  of  Shakespeare  into 

«  Does  not  this  parenthesis  justify  the  self-confidence  of  prophets  like 
Hananiah  (ch.  xxviii.)  ?  It  explains  it,  I  would  rather  say.  As  a  prophet's 
God,  so  his  prophetic  intuitions.  A  false  or  at  least  inaccurate  conception 
of  God  was  as  virtually  powerful  for  the  lower  prophets  as  a  true  conceptioa 
was  for  thf  higher  prophets  like  Jeremiah. 


COD  COMMANDS  TO  TAKE  THE  TRUMPET. 


It 


(i'.«.,  coma 
14).  "The 
learned  to 
s  and  Isaiah 
ily  produces, 
"out  of  the 
ers  will  be  a 
),  or  simply 
through  the 
1  until  Jcre- 
)f  answering 

chapter,  the 
for  this,  the 
three  ideas, 
sly  whatever 
:ounter  great 
1  render  His 
ited  from  the 
i  can  hardly 
words  would 
and  then  we 
ey  give  us  a 
re,  and  what 
le,  prepossess 
B  and  his  dis- 
ble  bias  have 
forming  our 
)rophet  in  the 
i."  Prophets 
retched  to  in- 
of  those  who 
hrase,  by  em- 
nd  character, 
ill  be  Shake- 
ikespeare  into 

of  prophets  like 

As  a  prophet's 

urate  conception 

true  conceptioa 


ourselves     We  cannot  all  be  prophets,  but  we  can  all  be  dis- 
ciples of  the  prophets,  and  receive  a  prophet's  reward. 

As  the  earnest  of  such  a  reward,  may  we  seek  to  have  the 
inner  experiences  which  Jeremiah  had  in  his  early  manhood  1 
May  we  open  our  ears  to  the  still  small  voice  of  God's  Spirit  ! 
May  we  never  thrust  ourselves  into  any  post  without  the  sense 
that  we  are  providentially  called  to  itl  On  the  other  hand, 
may  we  never  reject  a  true  call  from  any  earthly  consideration  I 
A  call  to  a  position  of  comparative  poverty  may  be  just  as  truly 
Divine  as  a  call  to  riches  and  prosperity.  Who  so  happy  as  he 
who  deliberately  sacrifices  a  brilliant  prospect  for  the  sake  of 
his  conscience  ?  May  we  learn  to  submit  our  personal  wishes 
and  aspirations  to  that  supreme  authority  whose  oracle  is 
within  us,  and  whose  living  voice  is  known  to  the  obedient 
disciple  as  the  shepherd's  voice  is  known  to  the  sheep  !  When 
langour  or  depression  creeps  over  us,  may  the  thought  of  duty 
revive  us,  and  be  to  us  an  inspiration  1  In  circumstances  of 
danger,  may  God's  Spirit  teach  us  how  to  speak  and  how  to 
act !  May  our  natural  graces  be  transformed  into  supernatural, 
and  even  our  natural  disqualifications  be  overruled  to  the  profit 
of  ourselves  and  our  work  !  And  may  we  learn  something  even 
from  that  part  of  Jeremiah's  "  vision  "  which  speaks  of  "  destroy- 
ing" and  "building  up" — learn,  that  is,  to  trust  God  more 
boldly,  not  only  for  ourselves,  not  only  for  society,  but  also  for 
the  Church,  remembering  that  Christ's  religion  is  not  bound  up 
with  this  or  that  form  or  system,  is  not  indeed  properly  a  form 
nor  a  system,  but  a  spirit  and  a  life,  and  that  the  gospel  lives 
and  thrives  upon  honest  inquiry,  and  delightedly  assimilates 
fresh  truth.  Christ  is  the  great  Reconciler  both  in  the  spiritual 
and  in  the  intellectual  sphere,  both  in  the  individual  soul  and  in 
society  at  large,  and  all  outward  changes  and  painful  revolu- 
tions are  but  the  disguised  ministers  of  His  all-reconciling 
Love. 

Need  I  ofier  an  excuse  for  this  appeal  addressed  to  myself  as 
much  as  to  my  readers.  If  so,  why,  let  me  ask,  should  books  on 
the  Scriptures  be  written  solely  in  the  academical  or  historical 
style?  Is  there  not  a  human  nature  common  alike  to  the 
historical  critic  and  to  the  ordinary  reader  of  the  Bible  ?  Why 
is  it  that  the  patristic  commentators  still  possess  an  attractive- 
ness for  many  students?  They  are  deficient  in  that  self- 
projection  into  a  different  order  of  ideas  which  is  necessary  fof 


13 


JEREMIAH. 


the  historical  realization  of  distant  times,  but  they  ^e  the  per- 
manent  elements  in  Scripture- teaching,  even  if  they  exaggerate 
them.  "  Their  whole  soul  is  stirred  and  penetrated  with  words 
which  to  them  are  manifestly  full  of  the  words  and  Spirit  of 
God  ;  their  reading  leaves  them  aflame  with  the  enthusiasm  ot 
admiration,  delight,  awe,  hope  "  (Dean  Church).  Is  it  impos* 
sible  that,  among  the  many  new  developments  of  the  Christian 
life  for  which  Providence  is  preparing  us,  this  may  be  one— 
the  union  of  the  critical  with  the  devotional  and  with  the  social 
spirit  ?  Are  there  not  even  now  some  examples  of  this  union, 
like  the  first  ripe  fruit  in  prophetic  imagery,  "  wise  master* 
builders  "  (i  Cor.  iii.  lo)  of  the  Church  of  the  future? 


.' 


«e  the  per- 
exaggeraU 
with  words 
na  Spirit  of 
thusiasm  ot 
s  it  impos* 
le  Christian 
y  be  one— 
h  the  social 
this  union, 
ise  master* 
? 


•I 


CHAPTER  It. 


FRIENDS  IN  COUNCIL. 


m 


::i. 


% 


JareiBMli  and  his  friends— Reformers  before  the  ReformatlM. 

The  conflict  between  Jeremiah  and  the  constituted  authoiitiet 
referred  to  at  the  end  of  Chapter  I.  belongs  properly  to  the 
time  of  Jehoiakim  and  his  successors  ;  but  surely  not  less 
important  is  the  earlier  period  during  which  his  character  was 
formed,  and  his  hold  upon  fundamental  truths  became  assured. 
However  scanty  then  may  be  the  records  concerning  it,  we 
must  make  the  most  of  them,  and  not  refuse  the  help  of 
imaginative  inference  or  conjecture.  The  dangers  of  an 
undisciplined  imagination  are  undeniable ;  in  the  regions  of 
science  and  in  those  of  history  beacon-lights  enough  have  risen 
to  view  within  the  recollection  of  our  generation,  and  far  be  it 
from  me  to  encourage  the  intrusion  of  a  sensational  element 
into  the  hallowed  study  of  the  records  of  revelation.  But  the 
fact  that  the  imagination  is  a  bad  master  does  not  nullify 
its  usefulness  as  a  servant — say  rather,  as  God's  appointed 
minister  for  enabling  us  to  realize  the  significance  and  the 
beauty  of  His  words  and  works  in  the  past.  A  biography  with 
an  element  admitted  to  be  imaginative  may  have  less  of 
photographic  accuracy  tlian  one  based  entirely  on  so-called 
fact,  but  more  of  essential  fidelity,  both  to  the  ideals  and  to 
the  achievements  of  a  life.  One  is  often  tempted  to  ask,  What 
have  we  gained  by  ihe  biographies  of  the  present  day,  which 
give  us  countless  details  but  without  a  breath  of  realizing 
imagination.  Useless  indeed  would  a  "  Life  of  Jeremiah"  be, 
if  no  attempt  were  made  in  it  to  refonstruct  what  may,  or  must 


14 


JEREMIAH. 


M 


I     I 


if  ! 


have  been,  the  couise  of  the  prophet's  development,  by  the 
help  of  the  imagination 

The  only  facts  that  we  know  as  yet  are  that  Jeremiah  was 
called  to  be  a  prophet  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  the  reign  of 
Josiah  (say,  B.C.  6i8,  or  617),  that  he  was  then  under  the  age 
at  which  it  was  usual  for  men  to  venture  an  opinion  in  public,* 
and  that  he  at  first  timidly  drew  back  from  so  weighty  an 
office,  but  gave  way  to  Jehovah's  repeated  injunctions,  which 
were  coupled  with  promises  of  protection  and  visionary  dis- 
closures of  the  appointed  subject-matter  of  his  prophecies. 
But  how  had  Jeremiah  been  prepared  to  be  thus  distinguished  ? 
What  had  been  his  education  ?  Who  had  been  his  friends  ? 
If  we  dip  into  his  book  we  are  at  once  struck,  first,  by  the 
warmth  of  his  sympathies,  and  next  by  the  isolation  in  which 
he  would  seem  to  have  lived.  His  tender  heart  overflowed 
with  sympathy.  To  apply  the  words  of  psalms  which  may, 
perhaps,  present  an  idealized  view  of  Jeremiah,  "  when  others 
were  sick,  he  clothed  himself  with  sackcloth," '  and  yet  "  when 
he  looked  for  sympathy  himself,  there  was  none,"  '  so  that  he 
felt  in  his  loneliness  as  if  the  patriarch  Jaco-  's  lot  were  his — 
as  if  "  bereavement  had  come  upon  his  soul."  *  He  had,  in  fact, 
felt  the  truth  of  those  warnings  of  Jehovah.  T/ie  whole  land, 
kings,  princes,  priests^  and  people,  shall  fight  against  thee  ;  ^even 
thy  brethren  and  the  house  of  thy  father,  even  they  have  dealt 
treacherously  with  thee^  Take  ye  heed  every  one  of  his  friend, 
and  trust  ye  not  in  any  brother.''  Nor  had  he  that  soothing 
compensation  which  many  a  persecuted  Christian  has  found 
in  family  joys ;  for  he  had  received  this  express  injuncti  jn  : — 
Thou  shall  not  take  thee  a  wife,  neither  shalt  thou  have  sons 
or  daughters  in  this  place?  What,  then,  became  of  that 
sympathy  in  which  Jeremiah's  nature  was  so  rich  ?  Did  its 
precious  waters  run  wholly  to  waste,  like  the  neglected  over- 
flow of  some  Eastern  river  which  once  irrigated  a  smiling 
country,  and  npw  stagnates  in  pestilential  marshes?  The 
psalmist,  indeed,  who  gives  us,  as  some  think,  Jeremiah 
idealized,  craves  from  his  God  that  recompense  of  love  which 

■  He  calls  himself  "  a  boy ''  (j.  7),  somewhat  as  Solorr  on  calls  himself 
"a  young  boy  "  (i  Kings  iii.  6,  comp.  xi.  4),  though  probably  as  much  as 
twenty  years  old.        ,  ^^ 

•  Psa.  XXXV.  13.       ,     '     '  i  Psa.  Ixix.  20.  «  Psa.  xxxv.  la. 

s  Jer.  i.  19  (comp.  *  •  Jer.  xii.  6.    i  Jer.  ix.  4.        ^  jgf^  ^yj^  ^ 


FRIENDS  IN  COUNCIL. 


IS 


nary  dis- 
ophecies. 
ignished  ? 
I  friends? 
>t,  by  the 
in  which 
verflowed 
lich  may, 
en  others 
et  "  when 
>o  that  he 
?ere  his — 
d,  in  fact, 
hole  land, 
'ee;  ^even 
\ave  dealt 
is  friendy 
:  soothing 
las  found 
nctijn  : — 
have  sons 
i  of  that 
Did  its 
:ted  over- 
\  smiling 
:s  ?  The 
Jeremiah 
ove  which 


k 


i 

.Mi 


was  denied  him  by  men— /<?/  my  prayer  (for  them)  return  (/.^., 
be  recompensed)  into  mine  own  bosom?  But  must  we— can 
we  believe  that  Jeremiah  was  so  utterly  without  responsive 
human  love?  That  his  own  strong  sympathy  with  his  people 
only  served  to  call  forth  its  opposite— hate  ?  Can  human 
nature  in  the  land  of  Judah  have  been  so  base  as  this  ?  Must 
we  take  Jeremiah  at  his  word  ? 

In  reply  it  may  be  said  that  none  of  the  prophets  are  arti?ls 
in  moral  portraiture  ;  they  do  not,  like  even  the  saddest  of  our 
recent  novelists,  express  the  lights  as  carefully  as  the  shades 
of  the  social  picture ;  and  Jeremiah  most  of  all  was  liable  to 
exaggeration  through  the  very  intensity  of  his  character.  He 
has  left  us  some  inestimable  pages  of  confessions,  supplemented 
by  notes  of  important  episodes  in  his  career,  but  not  a  com- 
plete autobiography.  It  is  allowable  therefore  to  hold  that  he 
did,  at  some  period  in  his  life,  enjoy  the  privilege,  as  successively 
disciple  and  teacher,  of  communion  with  other  minds,  and 
that  we  should  have  found  some  allusion  to  this  in  his  works, 
if  twenty-three  years  had  not  elapsed  before  his  first  public 
addresses  received  a  permanent  form  ?  I  am  the  more  inclined 
to  this  view  because  it  appears  certain  that  Jeremiah  often 
somewhat  exaggerates  the  spiritual  insensibility  of  his  people 
— he  himself  even  now  and  then  confesses  that  it  is  composed 
of  two  very  different  elements  (see  xv.  19,  xxiv.  5-7).  Surely 
some  like-minded  men  must  have  gravitated  towards  Jeremiah ; 
presently,  the  names  of  a  few  such  may  occur  to  us. 

This  conjecture  will  gain  much  in  plausibility  if  we  fix  this 
fact  in  our  minds  that  the  new  movement  of  religious  reform 
probably  began  earlier  than  is  sometimes  supposed.  If  so, 
Jeremiah  must  have  had  friends,  for  he  too  (I  will  justify  the 
phrase  presently)  early  became  a  religious  reformer.  But  did 
the  new  reform-movement  begin  before  the  eighteenth  year  of 
the  reign  of  Josiah  ?  Certainly  ;  and  one  may  add  that  it  must 
have  begun  earlier.  Just  consider  the  state  of  things  when  the 
young  king  came  to  the  throne.  We  know  but  little  of  the 
long  reign  of  Manasseh  (a  good  critical  view  of  it  will  be 
found  in  Ewald'),  but  we  do  know  wliat  Manasseh's  next 
«  Psa.  XXXV.  13. 

■  "  History  of  Israel,"  iv.  206-313.    Perhaps,  however,  this  great  critic 
(whom  an  American  writer  has  strangely  mis  "the  great  denier") 

may  have  «n«d  in  some  of  his  details  ;  e^.,  he  -r  -  ;ji-ve  placed  the  Book 
of  Job  a  little  too  early.    But  we  will  return  .'.  this  later.    Ewald's 


i6 


JEREMIAH 


I! 


..  t 


I     iil 


successor  but  one  found.  He  found  the  friends  of  a  comparatively 
pure  religion  deprived  of  many  of  their  natural  leaders,  m* 
eluding,  as  legend  asserts,  the  aged  Isaiah,  by  the  persecution 
of  Manasseh ;  and,  as  we  shall  see,  the  venerated  sanctuary 
at  Jerusalem  polluted  by  a  number  of  imported  heathenish 
rites.  But  he  did  not  find  pure  religion  friendless, — indeed, 
among  its  friends,  as  the  event  proved,  were  many  of  the 
princes  and  even  of  the  priests  of  Jerusalem,  and  some  of  these 
would  seem  to  have  obtained  the  guardianship  of  the  eight- 
years'old  *  prince  Josiah  on  the  death  of  his  father  (himself 
but  a  young  man),  Amon,  son  of  Manasseh.  This  was  of  the 
greatest  importance  to  the  plans  of  the  as  yet  quiescent  re- 
forming party.  Manasseh  had  ascended  the  throne  when 
on  the  verge  of  manhood,  and  fell  at  once  into  the  hands  of 
reactionary  advisers ;  Joash,  on  the  other  hand,  who  became 
king  at  seven,  was  (in  spite  of  a  too  probably  polytheistic 
queen-mother)  completely  under  sacerdotal  influence,  and, 
accordingly,  **  did  that  which  was  right  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovah, 
all  his  days  wherein  Jehoiada  the  priest  directed  him  "  (2  Kings 
xii.  2).  It  is  most  unfortunate  that  our  sources  of  information 
are  so  silent  as  to  the  period  of  Josiah's  minority  ;  but  none, 
I  hope,  will  object  to  the  "  imaginative  inferences "  which  I 
venture  to  draw  from  the  facts  which  have  reached  us. 

But  where  shall  we  find  even  a  scanty  basis  of  fact  ?  The 
earlier  and  more  documentary  of  our  two  narrative-books 
merely  says  that  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah's  reign  he 
begrn  a  course  of  reforming  measures  which,  by  their  drastic 
nature,  threw  those  of  Hezekiah  completely  into  the  shade. 
The  second  book  of  Chronicles  indeed  states  *  that  the  young 

account  of  Manasseh  may  be  compared  with  the  modest  and  instructive, 
though  not  too  critical,  sketch  in  Edersheim's  "  History  of  Israel  and 
Judah,"  vii.  169-177. 

*  Provisionally,  I  follow  the  ordinary  view  that  the  unidiomatic  ezpreaiion, 
"  eight  year"  instead  of  "  eight  years"  in  a  Kings  zxii.  z,  (Hebrew  text) 
te  an  unimportant  accident  (a  Chron.  xxxiv.  z,  has  "eight  years"). 
Klostermann,  however,  thinks  that  the  original  document  used  by  the 
compiler  had  "eighteen  year";  this  would  be  idiomatic,  but  would 
involve  a  revision  of  the  chronology  of  the  kings.  In  Arabia  it  was  a  local 
principle  that  no  minor  could  be  elected  caliph. 

■  a  Chron.  xxxiv.  3.  It  is  doubted  by  conservative  scholars  whether 
w.  4-7  describe  what  Josiah  did  (or  at  least  began  to  do)  in  his  twelfth 
year,  or  whether  they  are  an  awkward  anticipation  of  facts  to  bt  told 
more  fully  later. 


FRIENDS  IN  COUNCIL. 


17 


paratively 
aders,  in* 
ersecution 
sanctuary 
leathenish 
, — indeed* 
ny  of  the 
le  of  these 
the  eight- 
r  (himself 
tras  of  the 
iescent  re- 
one  when 
;  hands  of 
10  became 
olytheistic 
mce,  and, 
f  Jehovah, 
"(2  Kings 
(iformation 
but  none, 
"  which  I 
s. 

act?  The 
itive-books 
5  reign  he 
eir  drastic 
the  shade, 
the  young 

i  instructive, 
r  Israel  and 

c  ezpreiiion, 
Hebrew  text) 
ght  years"), 
used  by  the 
but  would 
it  was  a  local 

>Iars  whether 
in  his  twelfth 
ts  to  b»  told 


king  began  his  reformation,  not  in  the  eighteenth  year  of  his 
reign  but  in  the  twelfth,  and  as  early  as  the  eighth  began  to 
seek  after  the  God  of  David  his  father.  But  can  we  altogether 
trust  this  assertion,  considering  the  late  period  of  the 
Chronicler,  and  his  evident  determination  to  judge  the  kings  of 
Judah  by  the  orthodox  standard  of  his  own  times  ?  This 
would  be  too  bold ;  and  yet  I  think  there  is  something  to  learu 
from  the  Chronicler.  He  perhaps  reconstructs  history  on  the 
basis  of  inference :  tue  may  follow  him  in  his  inferences, 
though  we  may  be  vaguer  and  less  dogmatic  in  our  historical 
reconstruction.  Certainly  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  that 
Josiah's  adoption  of  reforming  principles  was  really  so  sudden 
as  it  is  represented  in  the  Second  Book  of  Kings.  An  ob- 
servation of  God's  ways  both  in  nature  and  in  the  soul  of  man 
justifies  the  conclusion  that  events  which  we  call  sudden  have 
been  long  since  prepared  by  unobserved  agencies.  The  call 
of  Jeremiah,  for  instance,  must,  psychologically  speaking,  have 
been  preceded  by  inward  experiences,  the  nature  of  which  we 
can  only  conjecture.  And  so  it  is  but  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  Josiah  had — not  indeed  all  at  once  shocked  his  people  by 
what  would  seem  to  their  unprepared  minds  arbitrary  icono- 
clasm,  but  nevertheless  given  early  and  serious  consideration 
to  the  lessons  of  the  past  and  the  needs  of  the  future.  The 
premature  death  of  his  idolatrous  father  Amon  may  well  have 
appeared  to  him  in  the  light  of  a  judgment,  and  the  reforming 
zesil  of  Hezekiah  may  have  fired  him  with  a  noble  emulation. 
Nor  can  he  have  been  unacquainted  with  those  bold  prophecies 
of  Isaiah  which  supplied  a  Divine  sanction  to  the  not  very 
successful  attempt  of  his  great  ancestor;  of  Isaiah,  not  less 
than  of  Jeremiah,  may  it  be  said,  that  by  their  pen  they 
accomplished  more  than  by  their  speech.  And  yet,  if  we  may 
venture  to  carry  on  the  method  of  inference— reading  and  medi- 
tation cannot  have  satisfied  a  mind  of  so  practical  a  bent. 
Josiah  would  naturally  seek  for  living  teachers  and  congenial 
religious  friends.  Isolation  is  as  unfavourable  to  practical 
ability  as  to  personal  religion.  The  ideas  of  Isaiah  needed 
to  be  developed  and  supplemented  before  they  could  be 
applied  to  present  circumstances.  And  even  if  none  of  Josiah'i 
contemporaries  was  ready  as  yet  to  show  how  this  could  be 
done,  yet  it  would  be  no  slight  gain  if  Josiah  and  some  like- 
minded  friends  could  ponder  the  lessons  of  history  together, 


■'.{, 


I   4 


lii 


il 


I 


'^ 


;i! 


'« 


(i 


i8 


REMIAH. 


and  build  each  other  up  in  the  truths  of  prophetic  religion. 
He  had,  no  doubt,  his  "  tutors  and  governors,"  but  he  must  also, 
unless  human  nature  has  changed  since  his  time,  have  needed 
youthful  associates.  Among  such  would  naturally  be  Jeremiah 
and  others  of  the  same  generation.  What  happy  days  the 
destined  prophet  must  have  had  at  this  period,  for  what  friend- 
ship so  delightful  as  that  which  is  cemented  by  common 
principles  and  a  common  object  of  ambition?  I  could 
willingly  believe  that  it  is  Jeremiah  who  takes  that  melancholy 
retrospect  (almost  the  sweetest-saddest  passage  of  the  Psalter), 
in  which  those  touching  words  occur — 


*'  But  it  was  even  tliou,  mine  equal, 

My  companion,  and  my  familiar  friend ; 
We  took  sweet  counsel  together, 
And  walked  to  the  house  of  God  as  friends 


-PsA.  It.  14. 


Alas  !  this  was  not  "  the  friend  that  sticketh  closer  than  a 
brother."  Worse  than  Demas,  who  forsook  Paul  out  of  mere 
worldliness,  this  bosom-friend  became  an  apostate  first  and  a 
personal  enemy  of  his  old  associate  afterwards. 

Shall  I  startle  the  critical,  nineteenth-century  reader  if  I 
remark  that  Jeremiah  is  already  revealed  in  these  circum- 
stances as  a  true  though  incomplete  type  of  Him  to  whom 
all  prophecy  points?  Let  me  assure  such  an  one  that  the 
theory  v^hich  underlies  this  remark  involves  no  unfaithfulness 
to  a  strict  historical  method.  It  is  simply  a  corollary  from 
the  fundamental  Christian  doctrine  of  Providence.  No  doubt 
the  theory  may  be  pressed  too  far.  "  Types  "  which  satis- 
fied, and  were  personally  intended  by  the  guiding  Spirit  to 
satisfy,  earlier  ages  do  not  and  cannot  satisfy  our  own.  But 
as  long  as  the  belief  in  Providence  and  a  sense  of  biographic 
analogies  last,  there  will  be  many  who  are  not  afraid  to  recog- 
nize "adumbrations"  (a  synonym  of  which  Mr.  Max  Miiller 
has  lately  reminded  us)  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  great  men  of 
ancient  Israel.  There  will  even  be  some  who,  with  a  personage 
in  "John  Inglesant,"  can  go  further,  and  maintain  that,  "  as  the 
innocent  and  heroic  life  of  Socrates,  commended  and  admired 
by  Christians  as  well  as  heathens,  together  with  his  august 
death,  may  be  thought,  in  some  measure,  to  have  borne  the 
image  of  Christ  ;  and,  indeed,  not  without  some  mystery  of 
purpose,  and  preparation  of  men  for  Christianity,  has  been  so 


FRIENDS  IN  COUNCIL. 


*9 


religion. 
nust  also, 
e  needed 
Jeremiah 
days  the 
at  friend- 
common 
I  could 
elancholy 
!  Psalter), 


'SA.  It.  14. 

;er  than  a 
It  of  mere 
first  and  a 

}ader  if  I 
ie  circum- 

to  whom 
:  that  the 
lithfulness 
lary  from 

No  doubt 
lich  satis- 

Spirit  to 
)wn.  But 
biographic 
I  to  recog- 
ax  Miiller 
It  men  of 
personage 
It, "  as  the 
1  admired 
lis  august 
borne  the 
nystery  of 
as  been  so 


,^ 


i 


magnified  among  men  '•  (vol.  i.  p.  36).  I  have  said  elsewhere  * 
that  I  belong  to  this  class  of  religious  thinkers,  and  that  I 
account  Jeremiah  a  striking  historic  type  of  that  Servant  of 
Jehovah,  who  is  himself  a  grand  poetical  type  of  the  Saviour 
of  Israel  and  the  world.  Certainly  Jeremiah  "knew  the 
fellowship  of  Christ's  sufferings,"  and  it  is  pleasant  to  hope 
that  his  Christlike  sympathy  with  his  people  was  accompanied 
by  some  Christlike  friendships  in  which  he,  not  less  than 
more  commonplace  persons,  began  to  practise  on  a  small 
scale  the  Divine  virtue  of  love.  "It  is  enough  for  the 
disciple,"  says  Jesus,  "thai  he  be  as  his  Master"  (Matt.  x.  24), 
and  we  are  sure  that  the  Piaster  formed  some  close  human  ties 
in  the  course  of  His  ministry,  and  that  only  one  of  His  twelve 
associates  proved  a  traitor.  Would  that  we  knew  something 
more  definite  about  Jeremiah's  friendships  I  But  we  can  at 
least  fill  up  our  mental  image  of  them  by  conjecture  ;  and  if 
we  not  only  venerate  but  are  interested  in  this  great  prophet, 
how  can  we  refrain  from  doing  so  ?  Jt  seems  to  me,  then,  not 
out  of  place  to  recollect  here  the  words  of  Roger  Ascham  in 
"The  Scholemaster,"  respecting  our  own  boy-king.  "Ifkyng 
Edward,"  he  says,  "had  liued  a  litle  longer,  his  onely  example 
had  breed  soch  a  rase  of  worthie  learned  ientlemen,  as  this 
Realme  neuer  yet  did  affourde."  Surely  it  is  probable  enough 
that  the  person  of  the  Jewish  boy-king  formed  in  like  manner 
the  centre  of  a  little  society  of  kindred  spirits,  for  we  know  that 
Jewish  kings  were  not  idolized  as  divine  like  the  Egyptian 
Pharaohs — a  society  of  which  Jeremiah  was  a  youthful  member, 
and  the  two  Hilkiahs  '  (one  the  High  Priest,  the  other  also  a 
priest,  and  the  father  of  Jeremiah)  were  among  the  recognized 
leaders.    The  probability  amounts  almost  to  certainty  in  the 

*  "The  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,*'  3rd  ed,  ii.  195  (comp.  p.  26). 

•  Ii  has  been  conjectured  that  Hilkiah,  the  father  of  Jeremiah,  is 
identical  with  "Hillciah  the  priest,"  in  2  Kings  xxii.  {e.g.,  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  "Strom."'  i.  p.  328,  comp.  Jerome,  "Quaestt.  Hebr.  ad  i  Chron. 
ix.  15,"  and  by  Joseph  Kimchi).  This  is  not  indeed  impossible.  It  is  true 
that  ••  Hilkiah  the  priest "  belonged  to  the  line  of  Eleazar  (i  Chron.  vl.  13), 
whereas  Abiathar,  who  as  we  have  seen,  had  "fields  "at  Anathoth,  was 
of  that  of  Ithamar.  It  is  a  very  fantastic  criticism  which  can  build  any 
argument  at  all  on  this  harmless  statement  ;  why  should  not  the  high 
priest  Hilkiah  have  had  landed  property  at  Anathoth  ?  But  I  will  not  on 
this  account  be  tempt«d  by  the  conjecture.  Hilkiah  was  not  an  un- 
common name. 


rih! 


20 


JEREMIAH. 


case  of  the  High  Priest,  for  it  was  he  who,  later  on,  brought 
the  Book  of  Law  to  the  notice  of  the  king ;  it  is  something  less 
than  this  in  the  case  of  J^^remiah's  father,  and  yet,  considering 
the  conditions  of  education  at  this  period,  it  is  scarcely  credible 
that  the  religious  ideas  of  the  son  should  not  have  been  largely 
derived  from  the  father.  The  name  of  the  latter— be  it  re- 
marked— means  "Jehovah  is  my  portion" — a  phrase  which 
was  at  once  a  deep  confession  of  faith  in  th?  true  God,  and  a 
silent  protest  against  the  heathenish  name  and  character  of  the 
late  king  Amon.  He  who  could  utter  this  phrase  in  the  sense 
which  it  bears  in  Psa.  xvi.  5  (comp.  Jer.  x.  16,  li.  19),  cannot 
have  been  ill -qualified  for  leadership  in  the  noble  army  of 
religious  reformers. 

But  would  Jeremiah  himself,  previously  to  the  eighteenth  year 
of  Josiah,  have  called  himself  a  reformer  ?  I  do  not  see  why 
he  should  not  have  done  so.  It  is  possible  indeed  that  he  only 
aspired  to  carry  out  the  plans  of  his  leaders  in  a  modest,  unob- 
trusive way;  but  if  even  the  pots  in  Jerusalem  and  Judah 
might,  by  a  consistent  religious  thinker,  be  called  holy  to 
Jehovah  (Zech.  xiv.  20,  21),  much  more  might  a  humble-minded 
young  priest  be  called — I  need  not  say  a  reformer — but,  in 
Biblieal  language,  an  amender  of  the  ways  of  Israel.  At  any  rate, 
the  inner  experiences  related  in  chap.  i.  are  not  psychologically 
intelligible,  if  he  had  not  brooded  deeply  over  the  defects  of  the 
national  religion,  and  longed  to  be  made  use  of  in  removing 
them.  That  no  action  was  taken  for  several  years  of  Josiah's 
reign,  proves  how  carefully  the  friends  of  reform  considered  the 
position  of  affairs,  and  how  anxiously  they  waited  for  some 
indication  of  the  Divine  will.  The  seniors  would  naturally  be 
the  most  averse  to  a  hasty  movement  They  would  caution  the 
juniors  against  compromising  Jehovah's  cause  by  a  "  zeal  not 
according  unto  knowledge."  They  would  point  out  how  few 
and  at  present  inactive  were  the  higher  as  compared  with  the 
lower  prophets,  and  how  the  princes,  or  elders  of  the  people, 
who  had  a  constitutional  share  in  the  government,  were  still 
attached  to  ihe  fascinating  local  superstitions.  Nothing,  they 
would  in  effect  say,  but  a  visible  sign  of  the  Divine  displeasure 
will  break  up  this  unnatural  calm,  and  at  once  add  a  new 
praaicalness  to  the  preaching  of  the  higher  prophets,  and  pre> 
dispose  both  princes  and  people  to  listen  to  it. 


t,  brought 
thing  less 
>nsidering 
y  credible 
en  largely 
-be  it  re- 
ise  which 
rod,  and  a 
:ter  of  the 
the  sense 
9),  cannot 
i  army  of 

eenth  year 
)t  see  why 
lat  he  only 
lest,  unob- 
ind  Judah 
d  holy  to 
)le-minded 
;r— but,  in 
^t  any  rate, 
liologically 
!ects  of  the 
1  removing 
of  Josiah's 
sidered  the 
I  for  some 
aturally  be 
caution  the 
i "  zeal  not 
It  how  few 
id  with  the 
the  people, 
,  were  still 
(thing,  they 
displeasure 
add  a  new 
s,  and  pre* 


CHAPTER  III. 

ROPES  AND  FEARS  QUICKLY  REALIZED. 

Jwoniah's  early  discourses,  and  the  historical  inferences  warranted  by 
them— The  quiescence  of  the  reforming  party— The  sign  granted  at 
length— The  threatened  Scythian  invasion. 

We  have  seen  that  after  a  spiritual  training,  which,  though  but 
dimly  discernible,  is  none  the  less  certain,  Jeremiah  was  called 
to  be  a  prophet  in  the  thirteenth  year  of  King  Josiah.  By 
birth,  as  the  heading  tells  us  (i.  i),  he  was  connected  with 
Anathoth  in  Benjamin.'  Dreary  enough  the  place  ('An^ta) 
looks  now — a  wretched  little  village,  which  forces  from  us,  in  a 
slightly  different  sense,  the  old  prophet's  exclamation,  O  thou 
poor  Anathoth  (Isa.  x.  30,  R.V.).  Anciently,  no  doubt,  it  was  a 
fortified  town,  and  some  of  the  stones  built  into  one  and  another 
of  its  few  poor  houses  present  the  appearance  of  great  age.  It 
stood,  in  fact,  on  the  great  northern  road,  as  Isaiah  intimates  in 
the  passage  from  which  I  have  quoted.  One  great  advantage 
it  had  for  Jeremiah's  training— it  was  not  far  from  Jerusalem, 
which  he  could  easily  reach  in  a  little  more  than  an  hour's 
walk.  But  in  itself  it  was  not  adapted  to  form  a  cheerful  or 
a  poetic  mind.  Cut  oiT  from  the  thrilling  sight  (to  a  devout 
beholder)  of  the  Holy  City,  its  inhabitants  look  down  eastward 
and  south-eastward  on  the  Dead  Sea  and  the  Lower  Jordan — 
striking  elements  in  a  landscape,  no  doubt,  but  requiring  to  be 

*  I  cannot  here  enter  Into  the  question  of  the  antiquity  of  the  arrange* 
ment  of  the  Levitical  cities,  the  list  of  which  in  Josh.  xxi.  (see«.  z8)  includes 
Anathoth. 


h  i 


sa 


JEREMIAH. 


I! 


i 


I  m 


I   .1)! 


i 

n 


varied,  and  deficient  in  happy  associations.  There,  howevefi 
Jeremiah  was  tied,  by  inheriting  a  piece  of  land  (comp.  xxxii. 
6-12,  xxxvii.  12) — a  point  in  which  he  reminds  us  of  Abiathar, 
the  well-known  high  priest  of  David,  who  lost  his  office  on  the 
accession  of  Solomon  and  retired  to  "  his  own  fields  "  at  Ana- 
thoth  (i  Kings  ii.  26).  Since  Jeremiah's  call  to  be  a  prophet, 
however,  he  naturally  resided  chiefly  at  Jerusalem,  though  there 
is  a  striking  episode  in  his  career  of  which  Anathoth  is  the 
scene.  The  capital  was  the  true  home  of  prophecy — the  val/ey 
of  vision^  as  Isaiah  calls  it  (Isa.  xxii.  5,  if  Delitzsch  be  right). 
Would  that  we  could  have  heard  the  young  and  once  timid 
prophet  after  the  great  transformation  wrought  within  him  by 
his  call  i  But  alas  1  neither  of  his  first  discourse  nor  of  any 
succeeding  one  have  we  an  exact  report ;  and  it  is  only  with 
much  qualification  that  one  can  assent  to  Ewald,  who  regards 
chap.  ii.  as  Jeremiah's  earliest  public  address.  No  doubt  the 
opening  words,  Go  and  cry  thus  in  the  ears  of  Jerusalem  (ii.  i), 
may  seem  to  indicate  that  all  the  following  words  were  actually 
spoken  not  long  after  the  prophet's  call,  but  when  we  observe 
the  generality  of  much  of  the  contents,  and  the  strong  appear- 
ance of  condensation,  we  see  that  Jeremiah  must  have  composed 
chap.  ii.  some  time  after  he  began  his  ministry  on  the  basis  of 
notes  or  general  recollections  of  a  number  of  discourses.  It  is 
therefore  not  so  much  a  discourse  as  the  quintessence  of  several 
discourses.  Four  leading  considerations  are  developed  in  it : — 
I.  Israel's  infidelity  contrasted  with  the  fidelity  of  Jehovah  to 
Israel  and  of  the  other  nations  to  their  gods  (z/v.  4-13).  II. 
Israel's  punishment  and  its  cause  (z/v.  14-19).  III.  Israel's 
inveterate  and  unblushing  idolatry,  and  its  practical  inutility 
(t/z/.  20-28).  IV.  Israel's  sole  gui'dness  (Jehovah  having  per- 
formed His  own  part  of  the  covenant)  and  its  mrxgnitude. 

There  is  much  that  is  striking  in  the  chapter,  from  Jehovah's 
loving  address  with  which  it  opens,  to  the  mixture  of  earnestness 
and  irony  in  the  concluding  description  of  Israel's  guilt  There 
is  also  much  that  might  well  startle  us.  Take  verse  I,  for  in- 
stance— I  venture  to  quote  it  in  Reuss's  version,  which  is  at 
once  graceful  and  scholarly — 

Je  te  garde  le  souvenir  de  la  tendresse  de  ton  jeune  Age,  di 
Pamour  de  ton  temps  de  fiande^  quand  tu  me  suivais  Si  iravers 
I*  dSsert,  par  une  terre  sans  culture. 

It  is  quite  certain  that  the  words  here  ascribed  to  Jehovah 


HOPES  AND   FEARS  QUICKLY  REALIZED. 


S3 


howeveri 
omp.  xxxii. 

Abiathar, 
Bee  on  the 

'  at  Ana- 
a  prophet, 
ough  there 
loth  is  the 
-the  valley 

be  right), 
once  timid 
lin  him  by 
nor  of  any 
s  only  with 
trho  regards 

doubt  the 
alem  (ii.  i), 
ere  actually 
we  observe 
ong  appear- 
e  composed 
the  basis  of 
urses.  It  is 
ce  of  several 
ped  in  it  :— 
Jehovah  to 

.  4-13)'  "• 
III.  Israel's 
cal  inutility 
having  per- 
litude. 

n  Jehovah's 
earnestness 
uilt  There 
se  I,  for  in- 
which  is  at 

euM  Age^  di 
lis  d  travtn 

to  Jehovah 


(with  intuitive  certitude  on  the  part  of  the  prophet)  give  an 
idealizing  view  of  the  Israel  of  antiquity,  and  that  the  popular 
religion  of  Israel,  even  after  Moses  had  spoken,  was  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  spiritual  religion  to  serve  which  Jeremiah  con- 
secrated his  life. 

Then  take  verse  13,  doubly  beautiful  to  those  who  can  realize 
the  preciousness  of  water  in  the  East — 

For  two  evils  hath  my  people  committed;  me  have  they 
forsaken^  the  fountain  of  living  water,  to  hew  out  for  themselves 
cisterns,  broken  cisterns^  that  hold  no  water. 

It  is  not  less  certain  that  the  contemporaries  of  Jeremiah 
were  not  conscious  of  having  forsaken  Jehovah,  though,  as  we 
shall  see,  their  Jehovah  was  very  different  from  the  Jehovah 
of  the  prophet.  In  proof  of  this,  see  v,  23  of  this  very  chapter, 
where  the  Israelites  are  represented  as  meeting  the  charge  of 
going  over  to  Baal-worship  by  a  direct  denial  of  the  offence. 
A  fair-minded  student  is  bound  to  say  that  Jeremiah  and  his 
opponents  were  both  right.  Jeremiah  was  right,  in  that  the 
moral  and  spiritual  elements  of  early  Israelitish  religion  had 
been  nearly  extinguished  through  the  influence  of  the  impure 
religions  of  Israel's  neighbours ;  his  opponents  were  right,  in 
that  Israel  in  its  worst  days  never  ceased  to  worship  Jehovah 
as  the  national  God.  The  Baalim  of  the  different  cities  and 
villages  to  which  Jeremiah  seems  to  refer  in  ii.  28  (=xi.  31) 
were  not  necessarily,  in  the  mind  of  the  worshippers,  "  other 
gods  beside  Jehovah,"  and  even  when  they  were,  their  worship 
did  not  exclude  that  of  Jehovah. 

The  fault  of  the  Jews  was  not,  strictly  speaking,  in  throwing 
off  the  service  of  Jehovah,  or,  as  Jeremiah  says,  changing  their 
gods,  but  in  refusing  to  rise,  at  the  call  of  the  nobler  prophets, 
to  a  higher  stage  of  religion,  in  not  even  standing  still,  but 
sinking  to  a  lower  level 

Again,  take  v.  18 — 

Well  thenj  what  hast  thou  to  do  with  a  journey  to  Egypt 
to  drink  the  water  of  the  Nile  f  or  what  with  a  journey  to 
Assyria  to  drink  the  water  of  the  Euphrates? 

To  this  the  Jews  might  very  well  have  replied,  that  their 
experienced  politicians  did  but  adapt  themselves  to  circum- 
stances ;  that  Israel's  imperial  position  under  David  and 
Solomon  was  due  to  the  temporary  depression  of  both  Assyria 
and  Egypt,  between  which  its  territory  was  situated;  that,  even 


a4 


JEREMIAH. 


!    i! 

!  ■ 
i! 


^i' 


I    ^;l 


ii 


were  Israel  to  be  reunited,  its  only  chance  for  safety  would  lie  is 
attaching  itself  to  the  stronger  of  those  two  powers ;  that  a 
policy  of  isolation  would  be  fatal  at  once  to  the  little  countiy 
of  Judah,  and  that  the  only  question  could  be  whether  a  philo- 
Assyrian  or  a  philo-Egyptian  policy  were  the  more  expedient. 
The  right  rejoinder,  in  the  spirit  though  not  in  the  words  of 
Jeremiah,  would  be  this — that  God  had  committed  to  Israel  the 
deposit,  not  indeed  of  a  perfect  religion,  but  of  one  which,  by 
wonderfully  varied  means  of  the  Divine  selection,  both  could 
and  would  be  developed  into  a  religion  adapted  for  all  nations ; 
that,  as  long  as  political  independence  was  necessary  for  this 
object,  Jehovah  would  preserve  His  people  without  its  having  to 
condescend  to  statecraft  ("  perverseness  and  crookedness,"  as  it 
is  called  in  Isa.  xxx.  12 '),  and  that  when  it  ceased  to  be  required, 
God  would  still  preserve  the  moral  and  spiritual  independence 
of  Israel  as  He  preserved  its  forefathers  in  Egypt,  and  conse- 
quently that  Israel's  true  interest  lay  in  dutifully  co-operating 
with  its  L  .vine  Guide. 

The  rejoinder  would  be,  I  repeat,  a  true  one ;  and  yet  we 
must  not  be  unjust  to  the  politicians,  who  thoroughly  acted  out 
their  own  idea  of  patriotism,  and  who  were  in  their  own  sense 
religious  men.  Was  not  Hezekiah  himself  at  one  time  tempted 
to  rely  too  much  on  a  human  alliance  (Isa.  xxxix.),  and  was  not 
a  king  (Azariah  or  Uzziah),  who  is  only  less  commended  by  the 
historian  than  Hezekiah,  the  prime  mover  in  a  Syrian  coalition 
against  Tiglath-Pileser  II.  ?'  Certainly  the  temptation  to  rely 
on  the  arts  of  the  polilician  was  not  less  at  this  part  of  Josiah's 
reign  than  under  his  great  ancestors.  Decay  had  begun  in  the 
blood-cemented  empire  of  Assyria  even  before  the  death  of 
Assurbanipal,  and  this  cannot  have  been  unknown  to  the  "  in- 
telligence department "  of  the  Jewish  court.  It  was  owing  to 
this  that,  as  the  second  chapter  of  Jeremiah  shows  us,  the 
philo-Egyptian  party  (comp,  Isa.  xxx.  2,  xxxi.  i)  had  supplanted 
the  philo-Assyrian  one  in  the  councils  of  the  sovereign.  We  see 
from  this  that,  whatever  the  personal  inclinations  of  Josiah  and 
his  nearest  friends  might  be,  he  was  not  as  yet  sufficiently  inde- 
pendent to  strike  out  a  line  for  himself ;  and  we  may  observe 

•  See  the  "Variorum  Bible"  on  the  passage. 

•  This  is  at  any  rate  accepted  by  Schrader,  and  regarded  as  probable  by 
the  cautions  Tiele  in  his  '*  Babylonisch-Assyrische  Geschichte,'  part  i. 
(Gotha,  1886),  pp.  230,  231. 


hf 


HOPES  AND  FEARS  QUICKLY  REALIZED. 


25 


in  this  connection  that  already  in  the  narrative  of  his  call 
Jeremiah  speaks  of  the  kin^s  of  Judah  (i.  i8),  i.e.  perhaps  the 
large  and  influential  royal  family  which  seems  to  have  shared 
the  important  governmental  function  of  judgment  with  the 
reigning  king  (xvii.  20,  comp.  xxi.  11,  12. 

Thus  the  facts  implied  in  Jeremiah's  second  chapter  cast  a 
bright  light  on  the  quiescent  attitude  of  the  reforming  party  at 
this  period.  It  is  evident  that  the  **  sign,"  for  which,  as  we  saw 
in  chap,  ii.,  the  reformers  must  have  been  looking,  had  not  yet 
been  given,  and  that  people  were  generally  prosperous,  and 
went  on  with  their  quaint  medley  of  religious  rites,  trusting 
that  Jehovah,  at  any  rate,  had  no  longer  any  complaint  against 
them.    As  Jeremiah  puts  it — 

Thou  satdsty  I  am  innocent  j  surely  his  anger  hath  turnea 
from  me  (ii.  35). 

Some,  I  am  aware,  have  found  a  precisely  opposite  statement 
in  vv  14-17,  where  the  past  tenses  retained  in  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion are  no  doubt  substantially  correct.  But  though  these  verses 
may  be  a  later  interpolation,  as  Evvald  holds,  due,  perhaps,  to  a 
disciple  of  the  prophet's,  ii  seems  to  me  perfectly  possible  to 
explain  them  as  a  vivid,  dramatic  description  of  the  almost 
inevitable  calamity  which  hung  over  Judah.  "  Prophetic  per- 
fects "  (see  Driver,  "Hebrew  Tenses,"  pp.  21-25)  ^''^  common 
enough,  and  passages  like  iv.  14,  vi.  8,  warn  the  reader  not  to 
take  the  description  too  prosaically  (for  chaps,  iv.-vi.  form  a 
group  of  prophecies). 

I  will  not  linger  further  on  this  chapter,  and  only  remark  that 
it  opens  a  welcome  view  of  the  Biblical  training  of  the  youthful 
Jeremiah.  The  great  prophets  of  the  eighth  and  following 
centuries  were  no  "  untaught  geniuses."  Hence,  Jeremiah,  like 
his  fellows,  is  fond  of  borrowing  ideas  and  phrases  from  older 
writers  ;  this  very  chapter  presents  numerous  points  of  contact 
with  that  fine  song  (Deut.  xxxii.)  of  unknown  authorship, 
enshrined,  by  a  singular  good  fortune,  in  the  Book  of  Deute- 
ronomy. It  formed  ao  part  of  that  Book  of  the  Law  which 
one  of  the  Hilkiahs,  as  we  shall  see,  brought  to  light,  but  is  an 
independent  Scripture,  though  for  centuries  covered  over,  as  it 
were,  by  Deuteronomy,  very  much  as  that  book  itself  is  said  to 
have  been  found  by  Hilkiah  covered  over  in  a  corner  of  the 
temple.  I  think,  however,  that  Jeremiah  is,  in  one  respect,  the 
superior  of  his  nameless  predecessor  ;  he  treats  his  countrymen 


li  I'l 


!lr 


«,i 


lii 


!:') 


H:l 


1 


ii 


■Hi  !'; 


16  JEREMIAH. 

more  tenderly,  more  sympathetically.  Not  tenderly  enough, 
perhaps,  as  we  should  think,  and  yet  with  a  wonderful  amount 
of  sympathy,  if  we  compare  his  first  prophecy  (if  chap.  ii.  may 
be  called  such)  with  the  Song  attached  to  Deuteronomy,  and 
indeed  with  the  works  of  any  of  the  prophets  who  went  before 
him,  except  Rosea.  It  was  the  gospel  which  opened  wide  the 
floodgates  of  truly  humane  sympathy ;  but  Jeremiah,  in  spite 
of  the  relics  of  antique  sternness  which  still  cling  to  him,  has  a 
tender  fellow-feeling  with  his  people,  which  may  be  compared  to 
the  first  delicate  streaks  of  advancing  dawn.  Surely  God  chose 
him  out  precisely  because  he  was  cast  in  this  softer  mould,  even 
as  He  chose  out  Hosea  to  be  the  prophet  of  the  decline  and 
fall  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel.  And  why?  Because  there  is  no 
chance  of  an  audience  for  the  prophet  of  woe,  if  no  sound  of  a 
stifled  sob  strikes  the  ear ;  would  our  own  Carlyle  have  in- 
fluenced the  last  generation  as  he  did,  if  men  had  not  felt  that 
underneath  that  rough  exterior  there  beat  the  warmest  and  most 
sympathetic  of  hearts  ? 

That  Jeremiah  was  fond  of  Hosea's  book  is  certain ;  the 
touching  words  which  open  chap.  ii.  are  closely  parallel  to 
a  passage  in  Hosea  (ii.  15).  A  happy  instinct  guided  him  ; 
he  felt  himself  allied  in  genius  to  the  eldt  ^rophet ;  and  he 
must  have  noticed  how  similar  his  own  circumstances  were 
to  those  of  Hosea.  I  will  not,  however,  exaggerate  this  simi- 
larity. Jeremiah  had  a  harder  fate  than  Hosea  in  this  respect, 
that  whereas  Hosea  was  always  able  to  look  with  some  degree 
of  hope  to  Judah,  in  Jeremiah's  days  the  last  remnant  of  Jeho- 
vah's people  seemed  swiftly  nearing  destruction.* 

It  is  true  that  Providence  still  has  an  eye  upon  Judah ; 
both  the  guilty  sisters  shall  yet  dwell  together  as  favoured 
children  of  Jehovah  (iii.  18);  but  we  may  be  sure  that  to  the 
increased  severity  of  the  judgment  upon  Judah,  there  corre- 
sponds a  deeper  gloom  in  the  mind  of  its  prophet ;  Hoses 
was  not  tried  as  severely  as  Jeremiah. 

Altogether  this  third  chapter  deserves  an  attentive  and  sym- 
pathetic study.  There  seems  to  me  no  reason  why  criticalness 
and  sympathy  should  not  be  combined  in  the  same  reader. 
Let  me  then  point  out  some  phenomena  which  might  escape  an 
uncritical  reader.  The  chapter  begins  (as  the  margin  of  the 
Revised  Version  rightly  states)  with  the  word  jay/«^— evidently 

«  Ewald.  "  The  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament."  iiL  68. 


HOPES  AND  FEARS  QUICKLY  REALIZED. 


9J 


ly  enough, 

ill  amount 

ap.  ii.  may 

nomy,  and 

irent  before 

d  wide  the 

,  in  spite 

him,  has  a 

smpared  to 

God  chose 

nould,  even 

ecline  and 

there  is  no 

sound  of  a 

le  have  in- 

ot  felt  that 

St  and  most 

ertain ;  the 
parallel  to 
uided  him ; 
et ;  and  he 
ances  were 
e  this  simi- 
his  respect, 
ome  degree 
int  of  Jeho- 

pon  Judah; 
as  favoured 
that  to  the 
;here  corre- 
liet;  Hoses 

^e  and  sym- 
criticalness 
me  reader, 
t  escape  an 
rgin  of  the 
—evidently 

,68. 


A  mere  fragment  of  a  superscription.  Those  who  know  any* 
thing  about  manuscripts  (and  even  the  unlearned  can  easily 
imagine  what  I  am  describing)  are  aware  how  apt  words,  and 
even  sentences,  are  to  get  dropped  out  of  the  text  in  the  process 
of  transcription ;  sometimes,  too,  words  and  phrases  will 
become  illegible,  and  the  scribe  who  makes  his  copy  from  such 
a  manuscript  will  forget  to  indicate  that  there  is  a  gap  in  his 
text.  Sometimes,  moreover,  words  will  get  copied  into  the 
wrong  line,  and  this  seems  to  have  been  the  case  here,  the 
first  part  of  the  heading  of  v.  i  having  been  transposed  to  v.  6. 
Let  us  then  read  v.  i  thus, — 

And  the  word  of  Jehovah  came  unto  me  in  the  days  ofjosiah 
the  king^  saying^  &c. 

To  those  who  read  their  Bible  as  attentively  as  their 
Shakespeare  or  their  Virgil,  this  critical  remark  will  not,  I 
hope,  seem  trifling.  It  requires  however  to  be  supple- 
mented. Is  it  possible  that  verses  4  and  5  were  meant  to  close 
a  section  of  this,  in  general,  well-arranged  group  of  prophecies  ? 
This  is  how  they  run  in  Reuss's  version,  from  which  I  again 
quote  because  of  its  simple  dignity  and  essential  fidelity — 

Maintenant^  n'est-ce  pas  f  tu  me  cries;  Mon  phe  f  toi^  le 
fianci  de  ma  jeunesse  /  ^en  souviendra-t-il  done  toujours  f  me 
gardera-t-il  rancune  d.  jamais?  Voil^  comme  tu  paries^  tout  en 
faisant  le  mal,  et  en  y  persistant. 

I  am  only  considering  the  passage  now  in  its  literary  as- 
pect ;  the  facts  of  history  which  explain  it  will  come  before 
us  later.  Notice  then  from  this  point  of  view  that  such 
deeply-felt  expressions  can  hardly  stand  at  the  end  of  a 
prophecy.  The  divine  speaker  is  wrought  to  a  high  pitch 
of  feeling ;  he  is  touched  by  the  tender  expressions  of  the 
personified  people  of  Judah,  which  indeed  correspond  to  the 
sweet  appeal  of  Jehovah  (quoted,  from  Reuss's  version,  in 
page  22),  bu*.  knows  only  too  well  that  they  are  but  unmeaning 
sounds.  And  so  he  begins  to  expostulate  in  the  style  of  Isaiah 
(i.  12),  "  Why  spread  out  your  hands  before  me.  I  hatj^  such 
prayers  when  coupled  with  evil  practices.  With  unchanged 
minds  you  return  home  and  calmly  repeat  all  the  old  abomina- 
tions" Some  further  development  of  these  ideas  is  clearly 
wanted  ;  Jeremiah  is  not  without  the  instincts  of  an  artist,  and 
does  not  leave  his  finest  motifs  only  half  worked  out.  What 
we  seem  to  want  here  is  a  contrasted  picture  of  Jehovah's 


28 


JEREMIAH. 


;? 

h 

ii 

i  ■ 

*» 

1 

J  ^■■ 

% 

"i  ■• 

:i! 


■!  i. 


lovingkindness  to  Judah  ;  then,  a  renewed  expression  of  horror 
at  Judah's  infidelity  ;  and  then,  a  picture  either  of  the  almost 
inevitable  judgment,  or  (for  Jeremiah  has  in  him  a  strong  dash 
of  the  emotionalism  of  Hosea)  of  the  final  conversion  of  heart 
which  God's  people  must  and  will  in  His  own  good  time 
experience.  This  is  the  close  which  verses  like  iii.  1-5  lead 
us  to  expect,  and  there  actually  is  a  passage  which  exactly 
meets  our  requirements  ;  only  it  is  separated  from  verses  1-5 
by  another  passage  which  the  editor  (a  disciple  of  Jeremiah's  ?) 
seems  to  have  inserted  here  to  illustrate  the  hopes  held  out  in 
verses  21  and  22,  and  so  give  a  more  complete  answer  to  th» 
question,  JVt'//  he  keep  {anger)  for  ever  {v.  5)  ?' 

Observe  first  of  all  the  contrast, — 

Mot'ffavaz's  dit :  Commeje  te  mettrai  parmi  mes  enfants!  Je 
ie  donnerai  un  pays  de  dHices^  un  patrimoine  magnifiquey  U 
plus  excellent  qu'ait  un  peuple  /  Je  disais :  Vous  nCappellerez 
pire^  et  vous  ne  vous  ditournerez  pas  de  mot  (iii.  19). 

Next,  the  horror  at  Judah's  surprising  infidelity  (does  not 
house  of  Israel  here  include  Judah  ?  comp.  ii.  4,  26) — 

Eh  out/  Comme unefemme  devient  infidUe d, son  amant^ ainst 
vous  Vavez  iti  a  mot,  maison  d Israel^  parole  de  PEterne) 
(iii.  20). 

See  how  deeply  the  Divine  speaker  has  been  hurt !  He  refuses 
the  word  used  by  Judah  in  v.  4  (comp.  Prov.  ii.  17),  which  ex- 
presses the  intimate  friendship  between  husband  and  wife,  and 
substitutes  another,  already  used  by  Hosea  (iii.  i),  and  indeed 
by  himself  in  verse  i,  to  describe  a  superficial  and  illegitimate 
attachment.  Of  course  house  of  Israel  in  this  t  erse  must  be 
taken  to  include  Judah. 

Lastly,  the  graphic  description  of  the  genuine  heart-con- 
version in  the  days  to  come,  which  reminds  us  of  the  pictu- 
resque tableau  in  chap.  xxxi.  Here,  however,  I  must  desert 
Reuss's  version,  and  venture  on  an  English  rendering  — 

Hark  /  there  is  a  sound  upon  the  heights ^  tears  and  entreaties 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  because  they  have  perverted  their 
way,  have  forgotten  Jehovah  their  God.  *'  Return,  backsliding 
children;  I  will  heal  your  backs lidings."  "  Behold,  we  art 
CJme  unto  thee ;  for  thou  art  Jehovah  our  God"  (iii.  31,  22). 


Ii:! 
i'  1 

i 

I 

i 

4        vi 

■  In  this  view  I  mainly  follow  Stade,  "  Zeitschrift  fiir  die  alttestamentliclM 
Wissenschaft,"  1884,  p.  151,  &c. 


HOPES  AND  FEARS  QUICKLY  REALIZED. 


of  horror 

:he  almost 

rong  dash 

n  of  heart 

ood  time 

I -5  lead 

ch  exactly 

verses  1-5 

remiah's  ?) 

ield  out  in 

sver  to  th» 


nfantst  Je 

^appellerez 

(does  not 

rant^  ainsf 
.  PEterne) 

He  refuses 
which  ex- 
1  wife,  and 
nd  indeed 
llegitimate 
e  must  be 

heart-con- 
the  pictu- 
ust  desert 

'  entreaties 
rted  their 
acksliding 
i,  we  are 
I,  22). 

itamentliclM 


But  gloomy  indeed  did  the  immediate  prospect  of  Judah 
appear  to  tht  young  prophet— so  much  so  that  in  the  prophecy 
which  extends  from  iiio  6  to  iii.  18  he  announces  on  the  part  o( 
Jehovah — 

Backsliding  Israel  hath  shewn  herself  more  righteous  than 
treacherous  Judah  (iii.  11), 

and,  more  astonishingly  still,  invites  the  backslider  to  return 
with  the  tender  assurance — 

I  will  not  knit  my  brow  at  you,  for  I  am  full  of  lovingkind- 
ness,  saith  Jehovah,  I  will  not  keep  {anger)  for  ever  .... 
Return,  backsliding  children,  saith  Jehovah,  for  I  am  a  husband 
unto  you  :  and  I  will  take  you  one  of  a  city  and  two  of  a  family 
and  will  bring  you  to  Zion^  (iii.  12,  14). 

As  I  have  already  said,  I  regard  the  prophecy  from  which 
these  quotations  are  taken  as  distinct  from  iii.  1-5  and  19- 
25.  It  may  have  been  written  at  the  same  period  as  the 
latter,  but  it  has  some  noteworthy  differences,  e.g.,  that  the 
futrre  is  described  in  still  more  attractive  terms,  and  with  a 
singular  spirituality  ;  also  that  the  phrase  backsliding  children, 
which  in  verse  22  refers  to  Judah  (v.  21  compared  with 
V.  2  proves  this — note  the  phrase  the  heights  in  both),  in 
verse  i^  evidently  refers  to  the  northern  Israel.  We  must 
remember  that  "backsliding"  (both  adjective  and  substan- 
tive) is  a  favourite  word  of  Jeremiah's  (see  ii.  19 ;  iii.  6,  8, 
II,  12,  14,  22;  v.  6;  viii.  5;  xiv.  7;  xxxi.  22;  xlix.  4) 
the  different  use  of  such  a  phrase  need  not  therefore  surprise 
us,  I  may  remark  too  that  the  word  forms  another  link 
between  Jeremiah  and  Hosca.  And  so  we  get  an  answer  to  a 
question  which  may  have  troubled  some  readers,  viz.,  Had 
Jeremiah  really  such  grave  cause  for  complaint  against  Judah  ? 
I  mean  that  the  idea  of  "backsliding"  occurred  naturally  to 
idealistic  teachers  like  the  prophets — to  Hosea  not  less  than 
Jeremiah,  and  to  Jeremiah  before  as  well  as  after  lue  year  of 
the  great  reformation.  I  think,  however,  that  both  ♦^he  pro- 
phecies which  together  make  up  chap.  iii.  received  a  heightened 
colouring,  if  indeed  they  were  not  altogether  put  into  shape, 

*  For  "  knit  my  brow "  the  Hebrew  has  "cause  my  countenance  to  fall " 
■—If  we  rannot  translate  a  figure,  we  must  substitute  a  corresponding  one* 
for  it  "  Kind  "  is,  more  fully,  '  rich  in  lovingkindness  "  (AAA^rf— the  bond 
of  the  covenant-relation  between  Jehovah  and  Israel). 


I 


30 


JEREMIAH. 


subsequently  to  the  eighteenth  year  of  Josiah,  though  based  on 
Jeremiah's  notes  or  recollections  of  his  pre-reformation  activity. 
I  must  now  pass  on  to  another  portion  of  the  first  great  group 
of  prophecies,  viz.,  chapters  iv.  and  vi.,  from  which  we  may,  I 
think,  infer  that  the  looked-for  "  sign "  from  heaven  came  at 
last,  encouraging  the  reformers  to  take  up  their  task  in  earnest. 
Who  has  not  heard  of  Attila  and  the  Huns,  and  the  horror  excited 
by  these  fierce  barbarians  among  the  civilized  peoples  of  the 
Roman  Empire  ? '  A  close  parallel  to  this  is  furnished  by  the 
Scythian  invasion  of  Assyria  and  Babylonia,  not  to  add  Pales- 
tine, in  the  early  part  of  the  rcJgn  of  Josiah.  Who  the  Scythians 
were,  what  was  the  order  of  their  desolating  inroads  and  how 
far  they  extended,  belongs  rather  to  the  historian  of  the  ancient 
East  than  to  the  biographer  ef  Jeremiah  to  discuss.  Our 
knowledge  of  these  subjects  depends  primarily  on  the  narrative 
of  Herodotus  (i.  74,  103-106,  iv.  i),  the  Hebrew  historical 
records  being  here,  as  so  often,  imperfect,  and  the  cuneiform 
tablets  being  as  yet  not  fully  transcribed  and  not  in  all  respects 
satisfactorily  explained.  That  the  Scythians,  like  the  Cim- 
merians, whom,  according  to  Herodotus,  they  displaced,  were 
originally  nomads,  is  clear  ;  but  it  is  possible  that,  after  having 
passed  the  Caucasus,  they  settled  themselves  permanently  in 
a  province  of  northern  Armenia  called  Sacasene  (from  Sacce 
the  Persian  name  of  the  Scythians,  Herod,  vii.  64),  and  made 
this  their  headquarters  during  their  later  ravages.  Gugu,  a 
chief  of  "  the  land  of  Safii,"  captured  by  Assurbanipal,'  may,  as 
some  think,  have  been  a  Scythian  prince  ;  and  it  is  an  attractive 
view  which  connects  Gog,  the  prince  of  Magog  (Ezek.  xxxviii. 
2,  3)  with  this  Gugu.  At  any  rate,  there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the 
vast  and  general  subversion  which  they  produced.  The  power- 
ful kingdom  of  Urartu  (comp.  Ararat)  henceforth  disappeared 
from  history.  The  Moschi  and  the  Tabali,  Assyria's  gallant 
foes,  were  reduced  to  a  small  remnant  which  took  refuge  on  the 
mountains  by  the  Euxine  Sea,^  and  it  is  of  this  apparently  that 
Ezekiel  speaks  in  the  following  graphic  passage,  so  important 
for  the  delineation  of  the  popular  view  of  the  underworld — 

'  See  Gibbon,  "  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,"  chap,  xxxiv. 
and  notice  his  parallel  of  the  Mongols. 

•  "Annals  of  Assurbanipal,"  r  '    B.,  "  Records  of  the  past,"  ix,  46. 

3  See  Lenormant,  "  Les  origines  de  I'histoire,"  ii.  i,  pp.  458-461  ;  cf 
Schrader,  "  Keilinsrhriften  und  Geschichtsforschung,"  p.  159. 


HOPES   AN7    FSARS  QUICKLY  REALIZED. 


31 


based  on 
activity. 
isA  group 
e  may,  I 
came  at 
1  earnest. 
)r  excited 
;s  of  the 
d  by  the 
id  Pales- 
Icyihians 
and  how 
e  ancient 
ss.  Our 
narrative 
listorical 
unciform 
respects 
he  Cim- 
:ed,  were 
sr  having 
nently  in 
)m  Sacoe 
nd  made 
Gugu,  a 
'  may,  as 
ittractive 
c.  xxxviii. 
as  to  the 
le  power- 
appeared 
s  gallant 
ge  on  the 
;ntly  that 
mportant 
rid— 

ap.  xxxiv. 

ix.  46. 
;8-46i  ;  cf 


T/ierg  is  Meshech^  Tubal,  and  all  its  multitude  round  about  its 
grave  J  all  of  them  unclad,  slain  by  the  sword,  who  caused 
terror  in  the  land  of  the  living.  And  they  lie  not  with  heroes, 
giants  of  the  olden  time,  who  went  down  to  Shedl  in  full 
armour,  with  their  swords  put  under  their  heads,  and  their 
shields  upon  their  bones,  for  there  was  terror  at  their  prowess 
while  they  lived  (Ezek.  xxxii.  26,  27).* 

Province  after  province  of  the  civilized  and  semi-civilized 
East    wa*-   visited  by  this  crashing  storm  (Ezek.  xxxviii.  9). 
The    incredibly    fertile    plains    of    Mesopotamia   were    laid 
waste.     Towns  and  villages  which  had  not  the   protection 
of  walls  were   pillaged  and  destroyed  (comp.  Ezek.  xxxviii. 
11) ;  only  well-defended  cities  could  defy  the  attacks  of  the 
bold  Scythian  archers  (Ezek.   xxxviii.   15,  comp.  Herod,  iv. 
46).    The  wave  of  ruin  swept  along  Palestine  by  the  coast- 
road  to  the  borders  of  Egypt.     That  most  ancient  temple 
of   Aphrodite  at   Ashkelon,  of  which   the   lately-discovered 
temple  at  Cythera  was  a  copy,  was  plundered  (Herod,  i.  105). 
Psamitik  (Psammetichus)  only  averted  an  invasion  of  Egypt  by 
"gifts  and  prayers."    Did  the  little  country  of  Judah  remain 
unscathed?    If  Hitzig  and  Ewald  are  right  in  finding  allusions 
to  the  Scythians  in  the  Psalter  (the  former  refers  Psalms  xiv. 
and  Iv.,  the  latter  Psa.  lix.,  to  this  period),  we  must  answer  in 
the  negative.    This  view,  however,  is  not  a  good  specimen  of 
the  critical  tact  of  these  eminent  scholars,  and  Knobel  has 
very  naturally  included  this  in  a  too  bitter  indictment  of  this 
faulty  though    never-to-be-forgotten   leader  of  thought  (See 
Expositor,  3rd  series,  vol.  iv.,  p.  263^.    The  obvious  inference 
from  the  narrative  of  Herodotus  is  that  Judah  was  in  the  main 
exempt  from  injury.    The  highlands  of  Judah  were  protected 
by  nature,  besides  which  the  Scythians  knew  well  enough  where 
to  make  the  most  productive  conquests.    It  is  probable  how- 
ever that  straggling  parties  turned  aside  inland.     The  fertile 
plain  of  Sharon,  studded  with  villages  on  their  little  tels  or 
eminences,  must  surely  have  suffered,  especially  as  the  road 
swerved  from  the  coast-line  at  some  distance  to  the  north  of 
Joppa.    Here  the  straight  way  was  barred  by  a  thick  forest 
called  Assur,"  well  known  as  late  as  crusading  times  for  it  was 

*  I  follow  Cornill's  coi-rected  text. 

•  See  Maspero  in  the  "Album "of  Egyptological  papers  published  ia 
honour  of  Dr.  I^eemans. 


.{ *j 


32 


JEREMIAH. 


:i| 


at  this  point  that  Cceur-de-Lion  overcame  Saladin  in  a  great 
battle  on  Sept.  7,  1191,  under  the  walls  of  Arsuf,  the  ancient 
Apollonia.  Some  (after  Pliny  and  Syncellus)  have  found  a 
trace  of  their  presence  in  the  name  Scythopolis  (=  Beth-shean, 
a  finely-situated  town,  now  Beisan,  on  the  edge  of  the  cliffs 
which  descend  from  the  Wady  JalGd  to  the  Ghor).  Even  if 
this  be  not  a  corruption  of  Sikytopolis  (city  of  Siccuth),  we 
surely  cannot  venture  to  connect  it  with  these  Scythians.* 

One  thing  at  least  is  more  than  probable — that  two  faithful 
servants  of  the  true  Jehovah  were  called  to  be  prophets  when 
the  danger  from  the  Scythians  began  to  loom  in  the  horizon. 
One  was  Zephaniah,  whose  short  book  seems  based  on  the 
prophet's  notes  of  his  discourses  during  the  terrible  crisis.  We 
cannot  help  turning  over  its  pages,  for  they  illustrate  passages 
of  Jeremiah  ;  for  us  at  least,  Zephaniah  is  not  a  "  minor 
prophet."  This,  then,  is  what  he  says.  Be  stilly  for  the  judg- 
ment is  irrevocably  fixed  ;  yea,  Jehovah  hath  already  prepared 
the  sacrifice f  hath  consecrated  his  invited  ones  (Zeph.  i.  7  ;  comp. 
Isa.  xiii.  3 ;  Jer.  li.  27,  28,  where  prepared  in  the  Revised 
Version  should  be  consecrated,  as  in  Isa.  /..;. ;  see  also  Isa. 
xxxiv.  6,  Jer.  xlvi.  10).  The  great  day  of  Jehovah,  he  adds,  is 
near;  it  is  near  and  hasteth  greatly  (Zeph.  i.  14) — a  passage 
which  to  us  has  a  special  interest,  because  this  and  the  following 
verse  partly  suggested  the  famous  hymn  of  Thomas  of  Celano, 
beginning  Dies  iree,  dies  ilia.  There  are  those  in  Judah,  our 
prophet  tells  us,  who  have  hitherto  known  neither  shame  nor 
fear;  surely  these  cannot  but  tremble  now  at  the  imminent 
recompence  of  their  heathen  wickedness.  False  Israelites ! 
No  better  are  they  than  their  neighbours  ;  nay,  their  obduracy 
makes  them  still  more  deserving  of  punishment.  On  the  other 
hand,  true  seekers  after  Jehovah  should  go  quietly  on  in  the 
path  of  obedience,  if  perhaps  ye  may  hide  yourselves  in  the  day 
of  Jehovah's  anger.  For  Gaza,  he  continues,  shall  become  a 
desert  tract,  and  Ashkelon  a  desolation  j  they  shall  drive  out 
Ashdod  at  noonday,  and  Ekron  shall  be  rooted  out  (Zeph.  ii.  3, 4). 
Such  was  the  prophet's  anticipation,  when  the  Scythians  began 
their  southward  march.  All  the  peoples  with  v/hich  they  came 
into  contact  should  have  to  rue  their  wickedness ;  the  barbarian 

*  Its  population  was  predominantly  a  non-Jewish  one  (a  Mace.  xiL  30  ; 
Tos.  "  De  BeUo  Jud.,"  ii.  18,  and  ••  Vit."  6).  ••  Scythian  "  may  mean  "bar 
Darian"  (comp.  3  Mace.  vii.  5  ;  Col.  iii.  11). 


HOPES  AND  FEARS  QUICKLY  REALfZED. 


3S 


a  great 
ancient 
found  a 
li-shean, 
he  cliffs 
Even  if 
uth),  we 

3  faithful 
ets  when 

horizon. 

on  the 
sis.  We 
passages 

"  minor 
he  judg- 
prepared 

;  comp. 

Revised 
also  Isa. 

adds,  is 

passage 
following 
^  Celano, 
idah,  our 
lame  nor 
mminent 
iraelites ! 
)bduracy 
the  other 
n  in  the 
» the  day 
become  a 
Irive  out 
i.ii.3,4). 
ns  began 
tey  came 
larbarian 

:c.  xiL  30  ; 
eon  "bar 


horde  was,  like  Attila,  the  •*  Scourge  of  God."  That  the  pro- 
phecy, thus  explained,  was  not  fulfilled  to  the  very  letter,  is  no 
argument  against  this  view  ;  the  Book  of  Jonah  is  a  warning 
to  us  not  to  be  surprised  if  God's  dealings  with  man  are  gentler 
'sometimes  than  His  threalenings. 

Let  us  notice,  before  we  pass  on,  Zephaniah's  unusually  clear 
perception  of  the  greatness  of  God's  world ;  in  his  judicial 
survey  of  the  peoples  known  to  him,  the  space  allotted  to  Judah 
is  not  more  than  agrees  with  its  real  position  among  the  nations. 
Also  that  no  measures  of  reform  had  as  yet  been  introduced — no 
plan  of  action  had  as  yet  commended  itself  to  that  little  band  of 
friends  which  included  (probably)  Josiah,  the  two  Hilkiahs, 
Jeremiah,  and  to  which  we  may  now  add  the  name  of  Zephaniah. 
But  each  member  of  this  upward  and  forward  looking  company 
was  being  gradually  ripened  for  his  own  share  in  the  work. 
Zephaniah's  own  importance  would  be  doubtless  enhanced,  if 
he  belonged  to  one  of  the  branches  of  the  royal  family.  Is  there 
any  ground  for  such  a  supposition  ?  Ibn  Ezra  thinks  that  there 
is,  and  the  reader  will  perhaps  agree  with  him,  on  looking  at 
the  first  verse  of  the  Book,  in  which,  contrary  to  the  usual  prac- 
tice, the  genealogy  is  carried  up  to  the  fourth  generation,  and  if  he 
observes  the  name  last  mentioned — Hizkiah,  or,  as  the  Revised 
Version  more  consistently  gives  it,  Hezekiah.  Truly,  the  wind 
bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof ^  but 
canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  nor  whither  it  goeth.  The  Spirit 
of  revelation  chooses  the  most  unlikely  instruments,  calls  Elisha 
from  the  plough,  Amos  from  the  herd,  Zephaniah  (it  may  be) 
from  the  steps  of  the  throne. 

And  who  wa  the  second  of  the  prophets  called  forth  by  the 
danger  from  the  Scythians  ?  The  reader  will  have  guessed  his 
name  already  ;  it  was  Jeremiah.  Among  the  minor  motives 
which  overcame  this  prophet's  hesitation,  one  must  have  been 
his  people's  urgent  need  of  an  interpreter  of  the  signs  of  the 
times.  In  Judah,  as  in  England  now,  people  were  only  too  ready 
for  external  and  non-moral  views  of  political  questions ;  this 
was  the  constant  trouble  of  Isaiah,  it  became  that  of  Jeremiah. 
Against  the  "opportunism"  of  the  statesmen  he  directs  the 
weapons  of  his  sarcasm.  Why  gaddest  thou  about  so  tnuch^  he 
says,  to  change  thy  way  (thy  policy,  as  we  should  say)  ?  Thou 
shall  be  ashamed  of  Egypt  also,  as  thou  wast  ashamed  of  Assyria 
(Jer  ii.  36).   Not  from  Egypt,  not  from  Assyria, — unable  soon  to 


n 


34 


JEREMIAH. 


help  themselves— shall  the  great  wind  come  which  shall  smitt 
the  four  corners  of  the  house,  so  that  it  falls*  (Job.  i.  19).  From 
another  and  a  more  energetic  race,  ever  replenished  (in  Jei» 
miah'  language — see  v.  15)  from  a  secret  store  of  vitality,  the  new 
dangers  will  arise.  Like  some  mighty  perennial  stream,  or  (!• 
quote  again  from  the  opening  vision)  like  the  contents  of  a  caldroo 
(Jer.  i.  14),  will  "the  evil"  come.  For  lojivillcallallthefamilm 
of  the  kingdoms  of  the  norths  said  Jehovah  y  and  they  shall  corns 
(Jer.  i.  14,  15;  comp.  iv.  6,  vi.  i).  We  see,  however  dimly, 
that,  as  the  punishment  of  accumulated  sins,  some  new  and 
more  awful  enemies  are  threatened,  and  when  we  consult  the 
pages  of  history,  we  cannot  doubt  that  these  are,  first  the 
Scythians,  and  next  the  Chaldaeans.  The  phrase  (if  I  am  not 
mistaken)  was  selected  after  the  course  of  history  had  sharpened 
the  prophet's  eye  to  understand  his  remembered  vision  better — 
selected  in  order  to  include  both  the  Scythians  and  the  Chal- 
daeans. "The  north  "  had  long  since  been  marked  out  as  the 
great  arsenal  from  which  God  drew  forth  first  one  weapon  of  ven- 
geance and  then  another.  To  Isaiah  it  suggested  the  Assyrians 
(Isa.  xiv.  31) ;  to  Jeremiah  the  not  less  destructive  nations  who 
continued  their  work.'  First,  however,  the  Scythians.  Surely 
it  is  of  these  dread  ministers  of  judgment  that  our  prophet 
speaks  with  emotional  exaggeration  in  language  such  as  the 
last  man  might  employ,  on  the  morning  of  the  great  doomday, — 
"  /  saw  the  earth — it  was  a  waste  Chaos;  and  heavenwards— 
the  light  thereof  was  gone  J  I  saw  the  mountains — they  trembled, 
and  all  the  hills  moved  to  and  froj  I  saw — mankind  had  dis^ 
appeared^  and  all  the  birds  cf  the  heaven  had  flown.  J  saw-' 
the  garden-land  {had  become)  desert,  all  the  cities  thereof  had 
been  broken  down^  because  ofjehoi'ah,  because  of  his  hot  anger 

*  That  Job  is  a  "parable"  was  early  seen  (see  "Job  and  Solomon," 
p.  61).  The  great  sufferer  may  be  poetically  individualized,  but  he  is  mor« 
than  a  common  man— he  is  a  symbol,  not  merely  of  afflicted  humanky, 
but  of  Israel. 

"  How  elastic  the  symbol  was,  appears  from  Jer.  xlvii.  i,  where  a  clauae 
inserted  by  the  editor  {before  Pharaoh  smote  Gaza)  suggests  that  he  under- 
stood the  waters  from  the  north  (v.  2)  to  mean  tlie  army  of  Neco  on  its 
southward  journey  to  Egypt. 

3  I  do  not  say  that  this  feature  of  the  description  applies  to  the  Scy thbuis. 
Jeremiah  adapted  his  prophesies  respecting  the  Scythians  to  the  later 
Chaldaean  crisis,  just  as  he  adapted  to  it  the  older  prophecy  against  Moab* 
preserved  in  Isa.  xv.,  xvi.,  and  the  old  poem  in  Num.  xxi.  27-30  (se« 
Jer.  xlviii.)    See  pp.  40,  41. 


HOPES  AND  FEARS  QUICKLY  REALIZED. 


35 


.  .  .  At  the  noise  of  horsemen  and  bowmen  the  whole  land Jleeth  J 
they  go  into  thickets,  and  climb  up  upon  rocks  j  every  city  is 
forsaken^  and  not  a  man  dwelleth  therein  (Jer.  iv.  23-26,  29). 

But  I  must  not  linger  on  this  interesting  theme.  Suffice  it 
to  add  here  a  sentence  which  has  struck  me  in  reading  (since 
the  above  was  written)  the  posthumous  revised  edition  of  vol. 
iv.  of  Lenonnant's  "  Histoire  de  I'Orient,"  published  in  1885  with 
the  friendly  aid  of  a  disciple  of  the  lamented  Assyriologist 
(M.  Babelon), — 

•*  Quand  on  lit,  dans  les  premiers  chapitres  de  Jdrdmie,  una 
description  de  ces  hordes  de  barbares  qui  se  ruferent  sur  la 
Palestine  comme  sur  la  M^sopotamie,  on  croirait  assister  h  une 
invasion  des  soldats  de  Gengis  ou  de  Tamerlan,  dont  les 
Cimmdriens  sont  d'ailleurs  les  anc6tres  "  (p.  379). 

There  is  nothing  arbitrary,  then,  in  what  the  preceding 
pages  have  offered  as  a  reconstruction  of  a  half-forgotten 
chapter  in  the  history  of  Judah.  From  every  point  of  view,  it 
is  clear  that  we  have  arrived  at  a  new  epoch,  and  if  Zephaniah 
can  claim  the  distinction  of  being  its  earliest  prophet,  Jeremiah 
has  still  the  superiority  in  the  richness  and  variety  of  his 
subject-matter.  The  transformation  of  the  timid,  sensitive 
Jeremiah  evidently  began  at  once.  A  marvellous  maturity 
strikes  us  even  in  the  opening  chapters  of  his  book,  and  though 
these,  in  their  present  form,  may  reflect  a  later  stage  of  his  ex- 
perience, yet  the  maturity  visible  may  in  part  be  attributed  to 
his  Spirit-led  meditations  before  his  call  came.  Jeremiah, 
then,  was  a  reformer  even  before  Josiah's  great  reformation. 

What  a  hope  it  gives  us  both  for  ourselves  and  others  when 
we  see  how  much  the  Spirit  of  revelation  made  of  Jeremiah  ! 
I  spoke  of  some  of  the  unlikely  agents  of  that  Spirit  among  the 
propheto  who  preceded  him.  But  who  can  have  seemed  more 
unlikely  than  Jeremiah  ?  Who  of  Josiah's  little  band  could 
have  expected  to  see  his  timid  friend  occupying  any  prominent 
position  ?  He  at  least,  ?t  might  have  been  said,  was  of  too  soft 
a  nature  to  lead,  and  too  sympathetic  by  far  to  endure  the  strain 
of  prophesying  in  an  age  which  was  growing  tired  of  prophets. 
He  was  perhaps  too  soft  to  take  the  lead  in  action,  and  per- 
haps without  the  example  of  Zephaniah  that  sensitive  shrinking 
from  the  acknowledged  call  of  duty  might  have  even  more 
resembled  the  agony  of  Gethsemane.  Mysterious  are  the  ways 
of  the  Spirit ;  an  electric  spark  often  seems  to  pass  from  one 


A 


Ml 


3« 


JEREMIAH. 


to  another  in  a  company  of  young  men,  and  so  perhaps  it  was 
vrith  Zephaniah  and  Jeremiah.  And  there  appeared  unto  them 
tongues  parting  asunder ^  like  as  of  fire;  and  it  sat  upon  each  oj 
them  (Acts  ii.  2). 

To  those  who  have  followed  me  thus  far,  the  form  and  bearing 
of  the  man  underneath  the  prophet's  mantle  have,  I  hope, 
become  somewhat  more  real  than  before.  He  has  none  of  the 
so-called  apathy  of  the  Stoic  ;  he  may  use  bold  worus  at  the 
risk  of  life,  but  he  does  so  with  quivering  lips.  Even  in  the 
solemn  hour  of  his  consecration,  he  has  had  sore  misgivings, 
and  would  gladly  have  made  way  for  a  stronger  man.  But  one 
of  his  chief  qualifications  is  precisely  his  sense  of  weakness  ;  he 
needs  no  thorn  in  the  flesh  to  make  him  pray  to  be  clothed  upon 
with  Divine  strength.  He  is  not  a  hero  by  nature,  but  by  grace ; 
and  in  his  sometimes  strange  confessions  we  clearly  read  that 
grace  never  expelled  nature.  His  life  is  at  once  the  most  natural 
and  the  most  supernatural  in  the  Old  Testament.  Let  lis  then 
be  patient  even  with  ourselves  ;  God  is  better  than  our  fears, 
and  more  generous  than  our  highest  hopes,  if  in  base  cowariicc 
vr«  4o  not  shrink  back  from  His  caU. 


was 
them 
choj 


aring 
lope, 
the 
the 
the 
ings, 
one 
he 
upon 
Irace; 
that 
tural 
then 
ears, 
riicc 


CHAPTER  IV. 

MORNING-CLOUD  GOODNESS. 

The  erisii  and  its  effects— Religious  reactkM. 

We  have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  in  the  early  part  of 
the  reign  of  Josiah  a  great  migration  of  peoples  took  place  ; 
first  of  all  the  Cimmerians,  and  then  the  Scythians  (who  in  the 
Babylonian  inscriptions  are  called  Gimirrai' — a  name  more 
properly  belonging  to  the  Cimmerians)  spread  ruin  and  desola- 
tion through  the  fairest  countries  of  Asia.  The  latter  of  these  two 
barbarian  hordes  even  violated  the  sacred  land  of  Jehovah.  Can 
we  doubt  that  the  prophets  on  their  watch-towers  were  keenly 
alive  to  the  danger?  Nothing  but  a  dread  of  admitting  unful- 
filled predictions  can  have  prevented  some  critics  of  the  last 
and  the  present  generation  firom  recognizing  the  light  which 
these  facts  of  history  throw  upon  the  language  of  the  two  con- 
temporary prophets — ^Zephaniah  and  Jeremiah.  The  limits  of 
this  volume  prevent  me  from  entering  into  the  question  of  the 
relation  of  prediction  to  fulfilment  Again  and  again,  however, 
the  expositor  is  obliged  by  the  force  of  truth  to  state  facts  which 
conclusively  demonstrate  that  "  it  is  not  fate  that  presides  over 
prophecy,  nor  does  fatality  follow  it."*  Prophecy  is  simply 
the  declaration  and  illustration  of  the  principles  of  the  divine 
government  sometimes  in  the  past,  sometimes  in  the  present, 
sometimes  in  the  future.  The  illustrations,  however,  are  always 
inferior  in  strict  accuracy  to   the  principles,  and  among  tlie 

■  Schrader,  "  Keilinschriften  und  Geschichtsforschung,"  p.  150 ;  Lenor- 
mant,  "  Les  origines  de  I'histoire,"  ii.  z,  p.  547. 
*  Edershdm    "  Prophecy  and  Histoiy  in  Relation  to  the  Messiah," 


3« 


JEREMIAH. 


illustrations  those  which  have  to  do  with  the  circumstances  ot 
the  hour  aie  more  implicitly  to  be  trusted  than  those  which 
have  to  do  with  the  past  and  with  the  future.  Zephaniah  and 
Jeremiah  were  prophets  in  the  sense  which  I  have  described, 
and  their  expositor  is  not  to  be  tied  down  by  the  mistaken 
theories  of  dull  and  unsympathetic  theologians. 

So  far,  then,  as  we  know  for  certain,  the  only  one  of  the 
nations  of  Palestine  upon  which  the  threats  of  Zephaniah  v/ere 
at  all  fulfilled  was  Philistia  (Herod,  i.  105) ;  and  it  is  but  a 
probable  guess  that  Judah,  so  earnestly  warned  both  by 
Zephaniah  and  by  Jeremiah,  suffered  somewhat  from  the  re* 
turning  Scythians.  God,  who  had  stretched  out  His  hand  over 
His  guilty  land  as  if  to  annihilate  it,  withdrew  it,  as  it  seems, 
after  (at  most)  a  very  mild  chastisement.  That  Zephaniah  and 
Jeremiah  did  not  foresee  this,  does  not  detract  from  their 
prophetic  character.  God  meant  them  to  make  the  utmost  use 
of  a  very  real  danger  to  Judah  in  teaching  and  admonishing 
their  people.  It  was  certain  to  both  that  the  national  sins  must 
be  followed  by  an  awful  national  judgment,  and  Jeremiah 
especially  went  on,  like  Evangelist  in  the  "  Pilgrim's  .\'rogress," 
urging  his  countrymen  to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  cone.  Like 
the  wise  men  to  whom  we  owe  the  canonical  proverbs,  like 
the  Rabbis  their  successors,  and  above  all  like  "  the  Master  " 
Himself,  he  did  not  disdain  the  homeliest  illustrations.  It  is  a 
condensed  parable,  borrowed  from  his  favourite  Hosea  (Hos.  x. 
12),  with  which  he  begins  the  prophecy  of  the  northern  invasion 
in  chap,  iv.*, — 

For  thus  saith  Jehovah  to  the  men  of  Judah  and  to  Jerusalem^ 
Plough  for  yourselves  fallow  ground^  and  sow  not  among  thorns. 

It  is  needless  to  explain  this  illustration  ;  one  might  take  it 
for  a  scene  from  our  Lord's  Parable  of  the  Sower.  Doubtless 
it  is  but  a  condensed  note  of  a  more  elaborate  and  pointed  dis- 
course, like  that  with  which  Isaiah  concludes  one  of  his  great 
warning  prophecies  (Isa.  xxviii.  23-29).  Both  regard  agricul- 
ture, in  the  spirit  of  primitive  times,  as  derived  from  the  mani- 
fold wisdom  of  God,  who  doth  instruct  him  (the  husbandman) 
aright^  and  doth  teach  him  (Isa.  xxviii.  26  R.V.).  Sow  not 
among  the  thorns^  says  the  prophet,  implying  that  his  hearers 


•  This  chapter  ought  to  begin  at  verse  3  ;  verses  i  and  a  belong  to  th« 
preceding  prophecy. 


MORNING-CLOUD  GOODNESS. 


39 


kces  of 

which 

ih  and 

Icribed, 

]staken 

of  the 
Ih  were 

but  a 

3th   by 

[the  re- 

id  over 


were  doing  so  at  the  time.  He  had  at  length  joined  Zephaniah 
in  announcing  the  approach  of  the  instrument  of  God's  wrath . 
The  preaching  based  on  the  terrors  of  judgment  seems  to  have 
produced  some  result.  In  iii.  4  (see  p.  27)  Judah  personified 
is  represented  as  from  this  time  addressing  Jehovah  by  the 
most  endearing  of  titles.  We  may  be  sure  that  the  little  band 
of  highminded  and  likeminded  friends  to  which  Jeremiah  him- 
self belonged  had  tried,  each  in  his  own  circle,  to  call  forth  a 
fitting  spirit  of  contrition  and  amendment.  Could  the  efforts 
of  these  good  men  be  absolutely  and  entirely  resultless  ?  Con- 
sider for  a  moment  the  great  spiritual  forces  laid  up  at  the 
outset  in  the  people  of  Israel,  to  which,  through  Jehovah's 
lovingkindness,  was  due  a  long  succession  of  inspired  men 
taken  from  the  ranks  of  the  people.  Could  these  forces  be 
entirely  spent  ?  No ;  the  good  spiritual  elements  inherited 
from  far-off  ancestors  had  doubtless  been  impaired  by  the 
adverse  influences  of  Canaan,  Assyria,  and  Egypt — endangered, 
but  not  entirely  destroyed.  And  so  a  certain  amount  of  moral 
reformation  must  have  been  produced,  and,  we  infer  from  Jere- 
miah, was  actually  produced  through  the  efforts  of  God's 
servants  at  this  period.  But  it  was  too  much  like  the  reforma- 
tion of  which  Hosea  speaks  in  northern  \%x2i€i^~your  goodness 
is  as  a  morning  cloudy  and  as  tht  dew  that  goeth  early  away 
(Hos.  vi.  4). 

Upon  shallow  and  superficial  natures,  already  "choked" 
with  the  "thorns"  of  noxious  habits,  the  most  diligent  cul- 
tivation was  thrown  away.  So  Jeremiah  came  to  think ;  and 
yet  may  not  the  scantiness  of  the  result  have  been  partly  due 
to  the  style  of  the  prophet'c  teaching?  He  had  not  entirely 
got  beyond  the  imperfect  moral  conceptions  of  Isaiah,  who  says 
in  effect  in  his  opening  discourse  (Isa.  i.  1 5-17),  "Wash  you, 
make  you  clean,  and  then  God  will  hearken  to  your  prayers," 
implying  that  the  sinner  himself  can  nip  his  evil  inclinations  in 
the  bud— can,  by  his  native  strength,  "  cease  to  do  evil "  and 
"learn  to  do  well."  Jeremiah  in  iv.  3,  4  speaks  Hke  Isaiah.  In 
other  passages  indeed  he  approaches  the  point  of  view  of  the 
Fifty-first  Psalm.  In  ii.  22  he  says.  Though  thou  wash  thee 
with  lye,  and  take  thee  much  soap,  yet  thine  iniquity  is  marked 
{i.e.,  deeply  ingrained)  before  me,  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah;  and 
in  xiii.  23,  Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  and  the  leopard 
his  spots  f  then  may  ye  also  do  gcod^  that  are  trained  to  do  evil. 


H 


40 


JEREMIAH. 


^ 


t 


But  he  does  not  get  so  far  as  Purge  me  with  hyssop^  and  I  shall 
be  clean;  wash  me^  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow  (Psa.  li.  7) ; 
he  even  says,  not  as  it  would  seem  ironically,  in  iv.  14,  0  Jeru- 
salem^ wash  thine  heart  from  wickedness^  that  thou  mayest  be 
saved  (compare  the  striking  language  of  iv.  4).'  The  reason  of 
this  inconsistency  is  that  he  has  no  knowledge  as  yet  of  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  is  surely  the  second  half  of 
the  Gospel,  and  which  is  almost  revealed  in  one  of  the  pro- 
phecies attached  to  the  original  Book  of  Isaiah  (Isa.  Ixiii.  11) 
and  in  the  Fifty-first  Psalm  (v.  11),  both  written,  as  I  at  least 
must  believe,  later  than  the  time  of  Jeremiah. 

The  results,  then,  of  this  earnest  but  onesided  preaching  were 
a  bitter  disappointment  to  the  prophet.  What  indeed  was  the 
good  of  a  few  isolated  good  actions,  as  long  as  the  moral  bent 
remained  unchanged  ?  Or,  to  speak  parabolically  with  Jeremiah, 
How  could  even  a  single  sheaf  of  ripe  wheat  be  harvested  in  a 
field  choked  by  thorns  ?  And  so  the  prophet,  in  reproducing  the 
discourses  of  this  period,  gives  but  one  verse  to  (I  suppose)  the 
exhortations  of  many  days,  and  at  once  passes  on  to  give  a  most 
graphic  and  deeply  felt  description  of  the  advance  of  the  swarm- 
ing barbarians,  reminding  us  of  a  similar  picture  of  the  expected 
advance  of  the  Assyrians  in  Isa.  x.  It  is  possible  that  at  a 
later  stage  the  prophet  of  woe  became  the  bearer  of  the  glad 
tidings  of  deliverance.  To  Jeremiah's  deeply  religious  mind, 
the  retirement  of  the  Scythians  would  appear  Jehovah's  merci- 
ful recognition  that  there  were  at  least  "ten  righteous"  in  the 
city  (Gen.  xviii.  32)  for  whose  sakes  a  brief  space  was  granted 
for  a  fuller  repentance.  Not  having  a  complete  collection  of 
Jeremiah's  discourses,  we  are  at  liberty  to  guess  this.  But  cer- 
tain it  is,  that  in  finally  editing  the  prophecies  which  make  up 
chaps,  iv.  and  vi.,  Jeremiah  introduced  some  new  features,  and 
otherwise  heightened  the  colouring  of  some  descriptions,  to  make 
them  suit  later  and  in  reality  more  dreadful  foes — the  Chaldaeans 
(see  p.  34,  note  3).    This  is  in  harmony  with  the  manner 

«  Circumcise  yourselves  to  Jehovah,  &c.  Is  this  phrase  (with  which 
comp.  vi.  10)  suggested  by  Deut.  x.  16?  If  so,  we  must,  it  would  seem,  in- 
clude it  among  the  features  (see  below)  added  by  the  prophet  to  his  earliest 
discourse  some  years  afterwards.  That  Jeremiah  should  adopt  the  lesi 
advanced  expr-^sion  (as  compared  with  the  language  of  Deut.  rn,  6), 
vould  be  in  harmony  with  the  aclcnowledged  result  of  criticism  that  Deut 
tfcx.  is  on«  of  the  latei  additions  to  the  original  Deuteronomy. 


,! 


o 

(I 

t 
li 


/shall 
u  li.  7) ; 
0/eru- 
}yest  be 
ason  of 
the  in- 
half  of 
le  pro- 
xiii.  II) 
It  least 


MORNING-CLOUD  GOODNESS. 


4' 


of  the  prophets,  and  indeed  of  the  Jewish  writers  in  general. 
Jeremiah  deals  with  his  own  earlier  predictions  as  the  authors 
of  the  ancient  versions,  to  whom  the  Bible,  as  Geiger  says,  was 
"no  dead  book,"  deal  with  the  Scriptures  in  general ;  he  works 
them  up  anew,  or  rather  "  works  over  "  them,  to  adapt  them  to 
later  circumstances.  That  difficulties  might  arise  to  readers  in 
remote  centuries,  did  not  of  course  occur  to  him  :  Providence 
hus  given  to  each  fragment  from  the  pen  of  prophets  and 
apostles  an  importance  which  the  writers  could  not  have  antici- 
pated. But  let  us  not  interpret  these  in  many  respects  peculiar 
works  as  if  they  were  indited  yesterday,  and  as  if  we  had  them 
in  their  first  draft.  Let  us  frankly  recognize  that  they  may  be 
susceptible  of  two  interpretations  with  equal  claims  on  our  at- 
tention. They  are  in  fact  a  fusion  of  kindred  historical  scenes 
to  some  extent  analogous  to  th .  fusion  of  details  from  tv  j 
national  catastrophes  in  Psa.  Ixxix. 

It  will  perhaps  make  it  easier  to  understand  this  fusion  of 
prophecies  if  we  remember  that,  however  sharp  the  agony  of 
this  crisis  may  have  been,  it  cannot  have  lasted  long.  The 
whole  period  of  the  Scythian  successes  must  have  been  much 
shorter  than  is  stated  by  Herodotus,  if  he  is  right  in  dating  it 
from  the  defeat  of  Cyaxares.'  At  any  rate  there  can  have  been 
but  a  brief  interval  between  Jeremiah's  first  gloomy  forebodings 
and  the  withdrawal  of  Jehovah's  chastening  hand.  It  is  surely 
not  a  misplaced  comment  that  God  is  at  once  more  loving  and 
more  just  than  finite  mortals  can  be.  He  "  seeth  not  as  man 
seeth"  (Job  x.  4),  and  recognized  elements  of  good  which  Jere- 
miah, with  his  tear-bedimmed  eyes,  could  scarcely  notice.  He 
was  ready  to  make  allowances  {ItntiKftQ,'  as  the  Septuagint  of 
Psa.  Ixxxvi.  5  has  it)  for  shallow  and  superficial  natures  and 
for  inconsistent  characters,— for  the  plants  which  "forthwith 
sprung  up,"  but  "had  no  root,"  or  (to  quote  a  feature  more 
parallel  to  Jeremiah's  own  words  in  iv.  3)  to  those  which  were 
"choked"  by  "the  thorns"  (Matt.  xiii.  5-7).  In  His  loving- 
kindness  He  spared  Judah  and  Jerusalem  for  this  time  ;  but  in 
His  justice  He  made  use  of  the  Scythians  to  prepare  the  chosen 
instrument  for  carrying  out  that  bitter  purpose  of  which  He 

«  Comp.  Meyer,  "Geschichte  des  Alterthums,"i.  557;  Maspero,  "His- 
tolre  andenne  des  peuples  do  I'Orient,"  ed.  4,  p.  514. 

•  FiDcly  adapted  to  the  ^n-a?  \ty6n%vov  salldkh  (A.V,  and  R.V, 
"ready  to  foiglve"). 


m 


mm 


43 


JEREMIAH. 


fi  r 


m 


had  said,  I  have  not  repented^  neither  will  I  turn  back  from  ii 

(iv.  28) 

Assyria  and  Chalda;a,  those  two  great  peoples  of  the  basin  ol 
the  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris,  had  long  since  filled  a  Lrge  place 
in  the  minds  of  the  Jews.  The  former  looked  upon  herself  as 
the  queen  of  nations,  but  her  power  had  been  seriously  impaired 
by  her  ceaseless  wars  ;  the  energetic  warrior  caste,  to  which  its 
conquests  were  due,  not  being  replenished  (as  was  the  case  in 
Turkey  formerly)  from  outside,  declined  more  and  more,  and 
even  in  Judah  her  fall  had  long  since  been  foreseen  by  the 
illuminated  eye  of  the  prophet  Nahum.  With  no  acquired  moral 
justification,  and  no  principle  of  cohesiveness,  tiie  great  Assyrian 
empire  could  not  but  fall,  not  gradually  like  that  of  Rome,  but 
with  a  sudden  and  terrific  crash.  To  her  at  least  might  be 
applied  the  prophetic  words  first  uttered  at  this  crisis  respecting 
Jerusalem,  Evil  impends  from  the  north  and  a  great  ruin 
(iv.  I). 

But  all  this  is  still  in  the  future  At  present,  to  quote  an 
earlier  prophet,  behold,  joy  and  gladness^  slaying  oxen  and 
killiftg  sheep^  eating  flesh  and  drinking  wine  (Isa.  xxii.  13),  in 
the  exuberant  festivity,  not  (as  in  Isaiah's  prophecy)  of  de- 
spairing sensualists,  but  of  a  peoph  *'  rejoicing  before  Jehovah  " 
for  all  the  benefits  that  He  had  done  unto  them.  Earnest  no 
doubt  were  the  thanksgivings  offered  both  m  the  temple  at 
Jerusalem  and  at  the  various  local  sanctuaries.  Yes,  at  the 
"  high  places  "  as  well  as  at  the  I.ouse  where  Jehovah  was 
"  enthroned  upon  the  cherubim  "  ;  for  in  all  good  faith  the  Jews 
must  have  believed  that  their  moral  and  religious  practices  had 
just  received  a  Divine  sanction  of  the  most  positive  kind.  As 
long  as  the  Scythians  were  near,  the  Jews  would  seem  to  have 
listened  to  Jeremiah,  and  prompted  by  alarm  to  have  made 
certain  promises  of  amendment.  Truly  from  this  time,  says 
the  Divine  oracle,  thou  criest  unto  me.  My  father,  {and^  Thou 
art  the  bridegroom  of  my  youth  (Jer.  iii.  4),  Then  in  terrified 
accents  the  Jews  inquire,  Will  he  retain  anger  for  ever?  will 
he  keep  it  perpetually  f  Verily,  the  prophet  adds  from  his 
experience  of  what  actually  took  place,  wlien  the  danger  was 
removed,  thou  hast  spoken  {such  things),  but  hast  done  those  evit 
things  effectually  (Jer.  iii.  4). 

That  Jeremiah,  in  spite  of  his  proneness  to  take  dark  views, 
was  disappointed  at  the  heathenish  reaction  which  now  set  in 


n 
ti 

0^ 

i 
t 

T 
f 


MORNING-CLOUD  GOODNESS. 


4.1 


may  be  inferred  from  the  extreme  bitterness,  the  sceva  inaigna- 
/w.of  the  opening  words  of  chap.  v.^—Roamye  through  the  -/reets 
ofjeru^alems  look  well^  take  notice^  and  seek  in  the  broad  places 
thereof^  if  ye  can  find  a  man,  if  there  be  any  that  doeth  justice^ 
that  seeketh  faithfulness j  and  I  will  pardon  her  (Jer.  v.  i). 
May  we  not  safely  regard  this  as  one  of  those  exaggerations  to 
which  from  his  temperament  this  prophet  was  peculiarly  liable? 
for  surely,  if  the  prophets  really  warned  the  Jews  of  the  ap- 
proach of  a  judgment,  it  follows  from  the  withdrawal  of  the 
"outstretched  hand"  that  there  must  have  been  a  few  righteous 
rricn  within  the  city.  God  knew  better  than  His  servant,  and 
in  the  course  of  His  providence  contradicted  the  extreme  ex- 
pressions of  that  passage,  which  may  be  compared  to  the 
overstatements  of  Elijah  in  the  wilds  of  Arabia,  a^d  those  of 
the  Florentine  Elijah— Savonarola,  in  the  earliest  period  of  his 
reforming  activity.  Still,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  accept  Jere- 
miah's authority  for  the  less  favourable  aspect  which  the  popu- 
lar religion  once  more  assumed.  This  is  how  the  prophet 
continues  to  unburden  his  mind  in  chap.  v.  The  first  passage 
testifies  to  a  loosening  of  the  moral  bands  of  society ;  the 
second,  to  the  increased  opposition  offered  to  the  nobler  class  of 
prophets.  Jehovah,  do  not  thine  eyes  look  for  faithfulness  f  if 
thou  smitest  them,  they  feel  nothing;  if  thou  comumest  them, 
they  will  not  receive  correction;  they  make  their  face  harder  than 
rock,  they  -will  not  turn  {v.  3). 

They  have  denied  fehovah,  and  said, "  Not  he  *y  upon  us  shall 
no  calamity  come,  sword  and  famine  we  shaP.  not  see ' 'y  and 
"  Those  prophets  shall  become  wind;  speaker,  there  is  none  in 
them;  it  shall  be  done  thus  unto  themselves^'  {v.  12). 

In  fact,  it  is  from  this  point  that  we  may  date  the  beginning 
of  Jeremiah's  long  martyrdom.  Priests  and  prophets  were 
BOW  tc  a  great  extent  united  against  him  and  his  friends,  and  my 
people,  he  sadly  says,  assuming  the  person  of  Jehovah,  love  to 
have  it  so  {v.  31).  The  king,  however,  is  not  mentioned  in 
this  dark  chapter,  some  of  the  details  in  which  we  hesitate  to 
take  too  literally,  although  to  resolve  them  into  mere  allegories 

«  ITie  speakers  mean  to  deny,  not  the  metaphysical  existence  of  Jehovah, 
but  rather  His  moral  government  of  the  world,  like  the  ungodly  described 
in  Psa.  xiv.  and  similar  passages.  J\'ot  he  means  "Not  he  is  the  true  lord 
of  the  world, ■•  "  Not  he  is  the  avenger  of  ths  innocent  "  (cf.  the  commentiv. 
tors  on  Psa.  x.  11,  13,  xii.  5,  xiv.  i). 


'  ^1 


if 

4  ' 


44 


JEREMIAH. 


would  destroy  half  their  force.*  All  classes  except  the  highest 
being  described  and  condemned,  one  naturally  asks,  What  was 
Josi^  doing  ?  What  were  his  feelings,  and  what  his  course 
of  action,  on  this  large  accession  of  strength  to  the  heathenish 
party? 

Surely  we  cannot  doubt  that  Josiah  would  gladly  have  inter- 
posed, had  he  been  able^  and  that  his  feelings  were  those  of 
alarm  and  shame.  It  is  true  that  he  had  hitherto  deliberately 
toler.,  .  the  old  religious  customs  ("  high  places  "  and  all  that 
they  involved),  which,  in  so  far  as  they  merely  indicated 
deficient  religious  insight,  may  not  have  seemed  to  him  as 
unmitigatedly  evil  as  they  did  to  the  later  historian.  Let  us 
remember  that  to  the  student  of  religions  the  customs  which 
would  be  odiously  repulsive  if  reintroduced  become  full  of 
meaning,  and  therefore  relatively  excusable  in  the  light  of 
antiquity.  Josiah  was  not  a  critical  student,  but  he  may  well  have 
understood  the  traditions  of  his  people  better  than  the  vehement 
Jeremiah,  and  have  known  or  believed  that  certain  of  them 
were  still  to  some  extent  the  manifestations  of  a  naive  and 
sincere  piety.  On  the  other  hand,  there  were  other  customs 
which  must  have  appeared  to  hirr^  as  pernicious  morally  as  they 
did  to  Jeremiah,  especially  those  which,  like  the  custom  of 
child-sacrifice,  had  but  recently  been  introduced  into  the  popular 
religion.  This  expression  may  perhaps  be  criticised.  Readers 
of  Dr.  Kuenen's  **  Religion  of  Israel"  must  well  remember  the 
powerful  passage  in  which  he  sums  up  the  evidence  for  the 
survival  of  human  sacrifices  among  the  Israelites  (vol.  I.,  p.  237). 
But  the  utmost  that  this  great  critic  can  prove  is  the  possibility 
that  sporadic  cases  of  human  sacrifice  occurred  in  early  times. 
In  the  same  connexion  he  quotes  Mic.  vi.  7, — 

Shall  I  give  my  firstborn  for  my  iransgressioHt 

The  fruit  of  my  body  for  my  personal  sin  t 

The  author  of  Mic.  vi.,  vii.,  however,  is,  regarded  from  a 

religious  point  of  view,  one  of  the  precursors  of  Deuteronomy 

(comp.  Mic.  vi.  8  with  Deut.  x.  12),  and,  from  a  historical  one, 

*  It  is  certain  that  the  customs  which  were  bound  up  with  the  reactionary 
Baal-worship  were  profou'ndly  immoral  (see  my  notes  on  Hos.  iv.  11-14  in 
the  "Cambridge  Bible").  Rutw.  7,  according  to  the  best  reading,  runs — . . . 
though  I  made  them  to  swear  {allegiance  to  me),  yet  they  committed  adultery, 
(comp.  Psa.  bcxiii.  37),  which  favours  at  least  a  parUal  reference  to  a  relapM 
into  heathenish  religioa 


MORNING-CLOUD  GOODNESS. 


45 


contemporary  with  an  influx  of  idolatry  and  a  bitter  persecution 
such  as  only  occurred  in  the  reign  of  Manasseh  (see  my  '*  Micah," 
p.  14).  Child-sacrifice  was,  as  I  have  said,  a  recent  importation, 
and  surely  it  is  even  more  shocking  to  natural  feelings  of 
humanity  than  the  hewing  of  Agag  in  pieces  before  Jehovah 
which  was  permitted  in  the  rude  age  of  Samuel.  Is  there  any 
evidence  that  child-sacrifice  was  ever  a  distinctively  Israelitish 
practice?  Phoenician,  Arabian,  and  Babylonian,  it  undoubtedly 
was  ;  *  but  we  must  not  too  hastily  assume  that  it  was  known 
to  all  the  Semitic  tribes  before  their  separation.  The  influence 
of  Babylonia  and  Assyria  upon  the  Semitic  East  was  vast  long 
after  that  prehistoric  event.  As  the  Babylonians  borrowed  this 
cruel  rite  from  the  "  Accadians,"  so  did  the  Phoenicians  and  (if 
I  am  not  mistaken)  the  Arabians  from  the  Babylonians.  Re- 
member too  that  I  am  now  speaking  of  the  comparatively  pure 
religion  brought  by  the  tribes  of  Israel  from  the  desert  of  the 
wanderings  ;  what  their  more  distant  ancestors  may  conceivably 
have  practised  is  not  germane  to  my  subject.  It  is  with  good 
reason  that  i  late  chronicler  says  of  Aha,^  that  he  made  his  son 
(or,  as  the  Septuagint  in  Lucian's  recension  gives,  his  sons,  roix 
viovQ  airov,  comp,  2  Chron.  xxviii.  3)  />ass  throu^s;h  the  fire, 
according  to  the  abominations  of  the  nations  whom  Jehovah  had 
expelled  before  the  children  of  Israel'  (2  Kings  xvi.  3).     That 

*  Sayce,  "  Hibbert  Lectures"  (1887),  p.  78  ;  Wellhausen,  "Skizzen  und 
Vorarbeiten,"  Heft  iii.  (1887),  pp.  112,  113;  Baudissin,  art.  "  Moloch,"  in 
Herzog's  "Encyclopadie,''  ed.  2,  x.  174,  175.  Notice  tlie  doubtless 
synonymous  Phcenician  names,  ReSpuyaihon  and  Malikyathon,  in  which 
Rasper  is  the  name  of  the  henvenly  Fire-god  and  Malik  =  Moloch,  i.e., 
"king  of  heaven."  It  may  be  observed  in  passing  that  it  is  doubtful 
whether  Malik,  Melech,  Molech,  or  Moloch  (we  may  adopt  which  form  we 
please)  can  strictly  be  called  z.  proper  name  of  the  great  heaven-god.  For 
the  horror  at  child-sacrifices  felt  in  a  humane  age,  see  the  end  of  Plutarch's 
treatise  on  Superstition. 

"  Baudissin,  in  the  article  already  referred  to,  thinks  that  the  custom  of 
appeasing  the  god  Molech  (Sept.,  Moloch)  by  sacrifices  of  children  pro- 
bably began  before  Ahaz,  though  from  sons  unknown  cause  the  cult  of 
Moloch  became  specially  prevalent  in  and  after  the  time  of  that  king. 
Thii  view  he  supports  by  the  virtual  identification  of  Molech  or  Moloch  with 
Ba&l  in  Jer.  xix.  5,  xxxii.  35.  He  rightly  denies  that  the  phrase  "to  cause 
to  pass  through  the  fire  "  can  be  used  of  mere  fiery  lustrations.  Doubtless, 
however,  the  children  were  slain  before  the  Sre-rite  was  performed  upon 
them  (see  Ezek.  xvi.  20,  2:,  xxiii.  39,  and  :omp.  Isa.  W\\.  5,  Psa.  cvi. 
37.38). 


4$ 


JEREMIAH. 


III    ^H'l 


l}il 


very  narrative  and  that  very  law  to  which  reference  has  been 
made  conclusively  show  that  when  they  were  written,  or  rather 
when  the  traditional  story  in  the  one  and  the  custom  which  lies 
at  the  root  of  the  other  became  current  (this  takes  us  back  to 
a  still  earlier  period),  these  horrible  child-sacrifices  were  not 
approved  by  the  general  consciousness  of  Israel ;  the  ram  in 
Gen.  xxii.  is  a  substitute  for  Isaac,  and  the  firstborn  of  man  in 
a  well-known  law  (Ex.  xiii.  13)  was  to  be  redeemed.  In  contra- 
distinction to  Ahaz,  it  is  recorded  of  Josiah  that  he  walked  in 
all  the  way  of  David  his  father  (2  Kings  xxii.  2),  and  the  primi- 
tive simplicity  of  David's  religion  (see  i  and  2  Samuel)  must  not 
blind  us  to  its  comparative  refinement.*  I  think,  then,  that  I 
have  not  claimed  too  much  for  Josiah.  If  his  friend  Jeremiah 
has  a  "  fear  and  love  of  God's  holy  name  "  which  contrasts  so 
"amazingly"  with  the  low  type  of  religion  prevalent  in  Israel, 
and  by  this  contrast,  as  Colenso  has  said,'  convince  us  of  his 
inspiration,  can  we  doubt  that  Josiah,  true  son  of  David  as  he 
was,  and  even  in  youth  a  "seeker  after  the  God  of  David" 
(2  Chron.  xxxiv.  3),  felt  as  truly,  though  not  quite  as  warmly,  as 
Jeremiah,  and  that  he  cast  many  a  look  of  horror  on  what  the 
prophet  calls  the  way  of  Israel  in  the  valley  Qer.  viii.  23)  ?  If 
even  for  us  the  picturesque  scenery  of  the  glen  of  Hinnom 
("  moaning  *'  is  a  suggestive  even  if  not  an  undoubtedly  correct 
rendering)  is  spoiled  by  the  awful  memories  of  Moloch's 
religion,  how  much  keener  must  have  been  the  feelings  of  one 
who  lived  in  the  midst  of  the  still  uncertain  struggle  against  its 
abominations !  I  admit  the  difficulty  which  arises.  If  these 
were  leally  Josiah's  sentiments,  why  did  he  lose  a  moment  in 
extinguishing  the  horrid  rites  of  "  the  Topheth  "  ?3  So  we  may 
naturally  ask,  but,  as  I  suggested  above,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
he  had  the  power  to  do  so.    If  the  present  ruler  of  Egypt  could 

•  Can  we  fairly  say,  with  Kuenen,  that  "  David,  at  the  instigation  of  tlie 
Gibeonites,  seeks  to  avert  Yahveh's  anger  by  the  death  of  seven  of  Saul's 
progeny  "  ("  Religion  of  Israel,"  i.  237)  ?  Doubtless  he  is  not  shocked  by 
the  impalement  of  Saul's  descendants  as  we  should  have  been  ;  but, 
believing  that  the  guilt  of  bloodshed  lay  upon  his  people,  could  he  have 
acted  otherwise  than  he  did  ?  h  was  not  a  sacrifice  but  an  act  of  vengeanca 
which  the  Gibeonites  performed. 

•  Colenso,  "On  the  Pentateuch,"  part  v.,  p.  30a 

3  See  Jer.  xix.  13,  the  place  of  the  Topheth  {i.e.,  according  to  a  commoa 
but  doubtful  etymology,  *'  the  abomination,"  lit.,  "  the  object  of  spitting," 
comp.  Job  xvii.  6). 


s 

r 
t 


MORNING-CLOUD  GOODNESS. 


Al 


with  difficulty  be  persuaded  that  it  was  safe  to  Venture  on  a 
somewhat  similar  step,*  how  can  a  king  of  Judah,  who  was  by 
no  means  an  absolute  sovereign,  be  blamed  for  his  backward- 
ness? 

So  much,  at  least,  is  certain,  that  Josiah  and  his  friends  must 
have  had  a  sad  life.  Disappointed  once  already,  they  had 
nothing  to  expect  from  the  future  but  still  more  bitter  dis- 
appointments, if  they  attempted  the  smallest  reform  in  their 
own  strength.  Meantime  the  good  old  Israelitish  character 
was  in  danger  of  a  sad  transformation.  Must  not  the  frenzy  of 
nature-worship  in  course  of  time  intoxicate  the  unhappy 
devotees,  and  assimilate  them  to  the  impure  and  cruel  character 
of  their  Phoenician  neighbours  ?  Yes,  it  must  do  so  ;  Judah 
has  sinned  worse  than  Israel  (Jer.  iii.),  and  must  be  punished, 
both  inwardly  and  outwardly — inwardly,  by  being  given  over  to 
moral  degeneracy,  and  outwardly  by  being  cast  off  from  the 
land  which  she  has  defiled.  But  in  a  strange  and  unlooked  for 
way  one  more  chance  is  to  be  oflered  her;  for  the  sake  of 
"ten  righteous  men"  the  city  is  to  be  spared  for  a  wh'le,  if  so 
be  the  covenant  between  Jehovah  and  Israel  can  on  man's  side 
be  renewed. 

«  The  abolition  of  the  ddseh,  or  trampling  upon  a  human  causeway, 
which  Tewfik  always  abhorred  as  "an  inhuman  rite"  (see  Butler,  "Court 
Life  in  Egypt").  Corap.  Miss  Edwards,  "A  Thousand  Miles  up  the 
Nile,"  p.  707,  and  (for  the  same  usage  at  Beirut)  Thomson,  "The  VmoA 
ftod  the  Book,"  p.  156, 


;r 


;  it 


i'^ 


t  \ 


III 

11 


m 


CHAPTER  V. 
"he  that  seeketh,  findeth." 

The  finding  of  the  book  of  Divine  mstniction — The  national  covenant-- 
Jeremiah,  a  preacher  of  Deuteronomy. 

Let  us  now  transport  ourselves  in  imagination  to  the  year  623 
(or  621)  B.C.— the  eighteenth  year  of  the  reign  of  Josiah,  and 
try  to  realize  the  religious  condition  of  the  people  of  Judah. 
Beyond  question,  they  were  "  servants  of  Jehovah,"  but  their 
Jehovah  (I  speak  of  the  mass  of  the  people)  was  simply  the 
supreme  deity  in  a  Pantheon,  and  had  insensibly  adopted  the 
characteristics  of  the  Canaanitish  Baal.  All  through  these 
eighteen  years  no  forward  movement  had  been  made,  in  spite 
of  the  genial  atmosphere  of  peace  which,  since  the  retreat  of 
the  Scythians,  seemed  to  invite  a  closer  attention  to  religious 
culture.  How  much  there  was  that  needed  reform  I  The  most 
honoured  sanctuary  of  Jehovah  was  still  polluted  by  idolatrous 
polytheistic  emblems.  Altars  still  smoked  both  to  Him  and  to 
other  divinities  "  under  every  green  tree  and  upon  every  high 
hill."  Children  were  still  sacrificed  to  the  cruel  Fire-god  in  the 
torrent- valleys  like  that  of  Hinnom  "  under  the  clefts  of  the 
rocks."  Worship  was  still  offered  to  the  host  of  heaven  upon 
the  housetops,  while  at  every  street-corner  in  the  larger  towns 
there  were  shrines  of  Jehovah  or  Baal  or  the  "  queen  of  heaven."* 

*  See  Jer.  ii.  ao,  28,  iii.  6,  13,  vii.  17,  18,  xi.  13,  xix.  13,  and  comp. 
a  Kings  xxiii.  4-15.  For  the  child-sacrifices,  see  Jer.  ii.  93,  vii.  31,  xix 
5,  xxxii.  35,  and  comp.  Isa.  Ivii.  5.  Of  the  prophecy  to  which  the  latter 
passage  belongs,  Ewald  very  justifiably  asserts  that  it  (like  Mic.  vi.,  vii.) 
transports  us  into  the  times  of  Manasseh,  or  those  immediately  following  his 
death,  and  adds  that  the  piece  bears  the  closest  resemblance  to  the  earlier 
pieces  of  Jeremiah  ("  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,"  iv.  331), 


"he  that  seeketh,  findeth." 


49 


Wl 


Josiah  and  those  who  sympathized  with  him  had  still  to  endure 
these  painful  sights  and  sounds  Tor  no  plan  of  reform  had, 
according  to  our  chronological  notices,  as  yet  commended  itself 
to  the  practical  mind  of  the  king.  Such  was  the  state  of  afTairs, 
when  a  lightning-flash  all  at  onc^  illuminated  the  scene.  A 
messenger  had  been  sent  by  Josiah  to  the  temple  on  business 
connected  with  the  repairs  of  the  building.  Nearly  two  and  a 
half  centuries  ago  the  sacred  building  had  been  efficiently 
restored  by  Joash,  the  account  of  whose  work  is  placed  in 
designed  parallelism  (compare  the  two  descriptions*)  to  that  of 
Josiah.  We  are  not  told  what  the  circumstances  were  which 
led  to  the  new  restoration  ;  but  we  must  conjecture  that  they 
bore  a  close  relation  to  the  gradually  progressing  though  not 
pubhcly  recognized  reform-movement.  The  messenger  himself 
was  Shaphan,  the  scribe  or  chancellor,  also  known  as  the  father 
of  Jeremiah's  patron  Gemariah  (Jer.  xxxiv.  lo,  19,  25),  and 
grandfather  of  the  equally  friendly  Micaiah  (Jer.  xxxvi.  11-13). 
We  shall  have  to  refer  to  him  again  ;  he  was  evidently  one  of 
the  adherents  of  a  progressive  or  spiritual  religion.  At  present 
we  must  accompany  him  to  his  royal  master,  and  watch  the 
effect  of  the  tidings  which  he  bears  from  the  temple,  where  a 
discovery  has  just  been  made  by  Hilkiah  the  priest.  It  is  a 
book  which  has  been  found,  containing  directions  on  religious 
and  moral  points  which  cut  at  the  root  of  many  popular  customs 
and  practices.  The  name  which  Hilkiah  gives  to  it  is  "the 
book  of  tdr&h  "  {i.e.y  of  Divine  direction  or  instruction) ;  the 
narrator  himself  calls  it  "the  covenant  book"  (2  Kings  xxiii.  2). 
The  Chronicler,  however,  gives  it  a  fuller  title — *'  the  book  of 
Jehovah's  iorah  given  by  Moses  "  (2  Chron.  xxxiv.  14),  which 
probably  expresses  the  meaning  of  the  earlier  narrator.  For 
certainly  it  was  as  a  Mosaic  production  that  "  the  book  of 
tordh  "  effected  such  a  rapid  success,  though  not  (even  accord- 
ing to  the  compiler  of  Kings)  the  whole  of  what  is  now  called 
the  Pentateuch.  There  can  be  no  longer  any  doubt  that  the 
book  found  in  the  temple  was  substanti  Uly  the  same  as  our 
Book  of  Deuteronomy.  Does  the  narrative  in  Kings  describe 
the  book  as  "  the  book  of  tordh  "  and  its  stipulations  collec- 
tively as  "  the  covenant "  (2  Kings  xxii.  8,  xxiii.  3)  ?  These 
are  also  phrases  of  the  expanded  Book  of  Deuteronomy  (Deut. 
xxix.  I,  ai,  xxx.  10,  xxxi.  26,  &c.).      Do  the  king  and  the 

'  Comp.  2  Kings  xii.  4-16,  xxii.  3-7. 

f 


i 


I 


J* 


ui 


50 


JEREMIAH. 


people  pledge  themselves  to  walk  after  Jehovah^  and  to  keep 
his  commandments  and  his  precepts  and  his  statutes  %rith  all 
their  heart  and  xvith  all  their  soul,  pi  rforming  the  words  of  this 
'jvenant  that  are  written  in  this  Look  (2  Kings  xxiii.  3)  ?  The 
same  phrases  occur  over  and  over  again  in  Deuteronomy 
(see  Deut.  viii.  6,  11,  vi.  5,  x.  i",  13,  iv.  13,  xxix,  9).  Does 
Josi.^h  devote  himself  to  the  suppressic.i  of  the  local  sanc> 
tuarics  and  the  centralization  of  worship  ?  This  is  also  one 
of  the  principal  aims  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy. 

Whenever,  therefore,  the  Old  Testament  is  rearranged  for 
Engli'jh  Bible-students,  we  may  expect  thrt  the  chapter  on  the 
Reformation  of  Josiah  will  contain  something  like  the  following 
section  : — 

And  Ililkiah  the  high  priest  said  to  Shaphan  the  chancellor^ 
I  have  found  the  lawbook  in  the  house  of  fehovah.  And  Hil- 
kiah  gave  tlie  book  to  Shaphan^  and  he  read  it,  and  came  to  the 
king,  and  told  him,  Hilkiah  the  priest  hath  given  me  a  book. 
And  Shaphan  read  it  before  the  king. — And  among  the  com- 
mandments of  the  lawbook  that  Shaphan  read  before  the  king 
were  found  these  words :  //ear,  O  Israel :  Jehovah  is  our  God, 
Jehovah  is  one;  and  thou  shall  love  Jehovah  thy  God  with  all 
thine  hearty  and  with  all  thy  soul^  and  with  all  thy  might. —  Ye 
shall  destroy  all  the  places.,  wherein  the  nations  which  ye  dis- 
possess served  their  gods,  upon  the  high  mountains,  and  upon 
the  hills,  and  under  every  green  tree  j  and  ye  shall  tear  down 
their  altars,  and  dish  in  pieces  their  standing  stones,  and  burn 
their  AsMrahs  (  or  emblems  of  Ash^rah)  zvith  fire  j  and  the 
graven  images  of  their  gods  ye  shall  break  down,  and  shall  de- 
stroy their  name  out  of  that  plaa.  Not  thus  shall  ye  worship 
Jehovah  your  God.  But  unto  ihe  place  which  Jehovah  your 
God  choossth  out  of  your  tribes  to  put  his  name  there  to  inhabit 
it.  shall  ye  seek,  and  thither  shall  thou  come;  and  ye  shall  bring 
thither  your  burnt -offerings  and  your  sacrifices.  Thou  shall  .tu: 
plant  an  emblem  of  A  shir  ah,  of  any  kind  of  tree,  beside  the  altar 
cf  Jehovah  thy  God  it'hich  thou  shall  make  thee.  NHther  shall 
thou  set  thee  up  a  pillar  which  Jehovah  thy  God  hatefh. 

When  thou  art  come  into  fne  land  which  Jehovah  thy  God 
giveth  thee,  thou  shall  not  learn  to  do  after  the  abominations  of 
the  nations  which  were  before  thee.  There  shjlt  not  be  found  in 
thee  any  that  maketh  his  son  or  his  daughter  to  pass  through 
thefi^e,  any  that  useth  divination,  or  an  enchanter^  or  a  torttrtr. 


m  ail 

\ofthis 

The 

)nomy 

Does 


king 


:i.u>. 


**HE  THAT  SEEKETH,  FINDETH." 


SI 


or  a  charmer.  For  these  nations  which  thou  dispossessest  do 
hearken  unto  sorcerers;  but  for  thee  Jehovah  hath  not  so 
ordained,  Jehovah  thy  God  shall  {continually)  raise  up  for  thee 
a  prophet  from  the  midst  of  thee^  of  thy  brethren^  like  unto  me; 
unto  him  shall  ye  hearken.^ 

I  pause  here  for  a  moment  in  the  interests  of  my  reader. 
The  future  ("  shall  Jehovah  raise ")  has  here  a  frequentative 
sense,  as  in  Isa.  x.  5,  Against  an  impious  nation  am  I  wont  to 
send  him  (not,  "  will  I  send  him/'  aa  A.V.  and  R.V.).  It  means 
"  shall  from  time  to  time  raise,"  and  the  verse  contains  a  promise 
that  a  prophet  in  the  highest  sense  (as  opposed  to  the  sooth- 
sayers just  before  mentioned)  shall  never  be  wanting,  and  a 
direction  to  pay  unconditional  obedience  to  such  a  prophet.  It 
is  therefore  a  grand  glorification  of  the  inspired  Hebrew  (or, 
shall  I  say  ?  Mosaic)  prophethood  which  we  have  before  us ;  not 
a  Messianic  prediction,  except  so  far  as  it  indicates  that  a  vic- 
torious king  was  not  adequate  to  God's  gracious  purposes  for 
Israel  and  the  world,  that  not  only  a  "  Messiah"  was  requisite 
but  a  prophetic  mediator  to  interpret  the  Divine  counsel  to  man. 
(It  is  no  objection  to  this  view  that  xxxiv.  10-12  denies  that  a 
prophet  ever  arose  "  like  unto  Moses  " ;  for  this  passage  is  not 
the  work  of  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  (see  chapter  vii.). 

And  if  thou  wilt  hearken  unto  the  voice  of  Jehovah  thy  God, 
he  will  set  thee  on  high  above  all  the  nations  of  the  earth;  but 
if  thou  wilt  not  hearken,  then  will  all  these  curses  come  upon 
thee  and  overtake  thee,  until  Jehovah  have  consumed  thee  from 
off  the  landj  whither  thou  goest  in  to  possess  it.  And  when  the 
king  heard  the  words  of  the  lawbook^  he  rent  his  clothes.^ 

Such  is  the  only  setting  in  which  a  Biblical  scholar,  who,  if  I 
may  model  my  phrase  on  that  of  Dante,^ 

.  .  .  'twixt  reverent  and  free, 
I  know  not  which  is  more  ... 


■  This  rearrangement  has  been  judiciously  made  already  for  American 
readers.  The  title  of  the  book  is,  "Scriptures  Hebrew  and  Cliristian, 
Arranged  and  Edited  for  Young  Readers  as  an  Introduction  to  the  Study 
of  the  Bible."  By  E.  T.  Bartlett,  A.M.,  Dean  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Divinity  School  io  Philadephia,  and  Ja.  P.  Peters,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  the 
Old  Test.  Languages  and  Literature  in  the  same  school.  Vol.  i.  London, 
lames  Clarke  &  Co.,  1886. 

■  8  Kings  xxii.  8-10 ;  Deut.  vi.  4,  5,  xii.  2-6,  xvi.  21,  sa,  xvlli.  9-15, 
zxvlii.  X5>az.  '  "  Purgatorio,"  xxiv.  13,  14  Longfellow). 


5* 


JEREMIAH. 


is  perm.tted  to  place  the  kernel  at  least  of  Deuteronomy  (if  this 
lomewhat  misleading  name  is  still  to  be  used  ')•  but  not  more 
than  this,  for  the  fifth  of  the  so-called  *'  Books  of  Moses  "  has 
most  certainly  grown  like  the  other  four.  It  is  too  soon  to 
inquire  what  this  "  kernel "  was  ;  too  coon  to  set  forth  the  pro- 
bable origin  of  this  earliest  part  of  the  book.  To  our  regret, 
though  not  to  our  surprise,  the  narrator  is  silent  on  much  which 
we  modern  students  would  like  to  know.  Conversations  on 
this  mysterious  lawbook  must  have  taken  place  between  the 
king  and  his  friend  the  high  priest,  but  they  have  found  no 
record  in  history.  The  narrator  only  mentions  the  profound 
impression  which  the  book  at  once  made  upon  the  king.  Was 
the  latter  afraid  of  the  curses  pronounced  upon  a  persistently 
disobedient  people?  So  the  narrator  appears  to  think.  I 
would  rather  suppose  that  a  spirit  of  great  hopefulness  came 
upon  him,  now  that  the  wished-for  *'  sign  "  from  heaven  had 
come,  and  that  his  only  remaining  desire  was  to  ascertain,  not 
whether  the  pen  of  Moses  wrote,  but  whether  the  successors  of 
Moses  in  the  prophetic  office  guaranteed  it  to  be  according  to 
the  will  of  God.  He  sent  therefore  to  one  of  those  who  were 
specially  called  to  "  interpret "  that  will  (Isa.  xliii.  27,  R.V.). 
The  circumstances  of  the  visit  are  noteworthy.  When  a  pro- 
phecy of  woe  has  to  be  delivered  to  Hezekiah,  it  is  Isaiah  who 
visits  the  king  (Isa.  xxxix.  3) ;  prophetism  and  royalty  are  still 
almost  equal  powers  in  the  state.  But  since  Isaiah's  death  the 
relation  of  these  two  powers  has  changed.  In  the  present 
instance,  it  is  a  prophetic  personage  to  whom  the  king  sends 
his  ambassadors.  It  is  an  interesting  but  not  very  important 
fact*  that  this  personage  is  a  woman.  Possibly  she  was 
selected  as  being  at  once  of  advanced  age  and  high  in  repute 
as  well  with  the  king  as  with  the  people  (this  qualification 
would  exclude  Jeremiah).  There  were  doubtless,  as  in  Ezekiel's 
time   (Ezek.  xiii.  17-23),  many  prophetesses,  but  not  many 

*  The  name  means  "  repetition  of  the  law" ;  it  is  founded  on  a  philo- 
logical mistake,  and  assumes  a  critical  view  which  very  many  believe  to  be 
equally  erroneous.  The  philological  mistake  referred  to  is  the  rendering  of 
Deut.  xvii.  18,  where  the  Septuagint  has  "this  deuteronomy  "  (instead  of 
"  a  copy  of  this  law  ").  The  doubtful  critical  view  is  that  "  Deuteronomy  " 
is  later  than  the  rest  of  the  legislation  in  the  Pentateuch. 

"  The  later  Jews  judged  otherwise,  however,  if  we  may  argue  from  the 
■0- called  Tomb  of  Huldah  on  Mount  Olivet. 


if  this 
more 
"has 

}on  to 


'he  that  seeketh,  findeth.' 


S3 


the 


Huldahs ;  the  rarity  of  them  would  with  some  add  to  her 
personal  reputation.  The  prophecy  ascribed  to  Huldah'  by  the 
later  compiler  has,  for  different  reasons,  been  a  stumbling- 
block  to  students.  The  moderns  have  remarked  that  Josiah 
went  through  life  in  perfect  unconsciousness  of  any  dark  fate 
brooding  over  his  people,  and  that  the  phraseology  is  that  of 
later  prophecy ;  the  ancients  were  more  puzzled  by  the  state- 
ment that  Josiah  should  die  in  peace  (some  copies  of  the 
Septuagint  gave  in  Jerusalem— \xi  Salem).  The  king's  next 
step  suggests  that  he  reaJy  wished  the  reforms  called  for  by  the 
lawbook  to  be  the  result  of  a  national  movement  (comp.  Isa. 
xxvii.  9,  XXX.  22).  The  wish  was  too  languid,  to  judge  from  the 
king's  subsequent  methods,  but  may  he  not  really  have  wished 
to  see  Isaiah's  prophecy  fulfilled?  At  any  rate,  he  summoned  an 
assembly  in  which  the  whole  nation  was  duly  and  fully  repre- 
sented, and  which  accepted  the  newly  ''  found  "  lawbook,  as 
soon  as  it  was  read  to  them,  in  a  form  probably  shorter  than 
that  in  which  we  have  received  it.  Finally  all  present  joined 
the  king  in  a  solemn  "  covenant,"  binding  themselves  to  carry 
out  faithfully  "  the  words  of  this  book."  The  narrative  runs 
thus: 

And  the  king  sent ^  and  there  were  gathered  unto  him  all  the 
elders  of  Judah  and  of  Jerusalem.  And  the  king  went  up  to  the 
house  of  Jehovah^  and  all  the  men  of  Judah  and  all  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Jerusalem  with  him,  and  the  pries ts,  and  the  prophets ,* 
and  all  the  people,  both  small  and  great;  and  he  read  in  their 
ears  all  the  words  of  the  book  of  covenant  ^  which  was  found 
in  the  house  of  Jehovah.  And  the  king  stood  on  the  platform,* 
And  he  made  the  covenant  before  Jehovah,  to  walk  after  Jeho- 
vah [i.e.,  to  serve  no  other  god],  and  to  keep  his  commandtnents 
and  his  testimonies  and  his  statutes,  with  all  his  heart  and  all 

*  There  are  coins  with  the  name  of  Huldah,  a  Nabataean  queen,  the  con- 
sort of  King  Aretas  Philodemos,  a  contemporary  of  Pompeius  ("Zeitschr. 
der  d.  morgenland.  Gesellschaft,"  xiv.  370,  &c.) 

•  Jeremiah,  therefore,  was  present,  as  we  may  presume. 

3  That  "  the  book  of  covenant "  is  different  from  that  mentioned  in  Exod. 
xxiv.  7,  needs  no  showing.  Observe  that  Deuteronomy  is  entirely  silent 
respecting  that  covenant-book  and  its  acceptance. 

♦  So  R.V.  margin  rightly.  Some  conspicuous  place,  specially  reserved 
for  the  king,  seems  to  be  meant  (comp.  3  Kings  xi.  14).  The  Hebrew 
'ammud  means  anything  which  stands  firmly — usually  (but  not  neces* 
•arily)  a  pillar.    Josephus  has,  a-aQ  ini  rov  fiimaroi;. 


]'  '»• 


54 


JEREMIAH. 


i     f. 


his  soul,  to  perform  the  words  of  this  covenant  that  art  written 
in  this  book.  And  all  the  people  entered  into  the  covenant. 
And  the  king  commanded  all  the  people,  spying,  Keep  the  pass- 
over  unto  Jehovah  your  God,  as  it  is  written  i .  this  book  of 
covenant^  (2  Kings  xxiii.  I-3,  21). 

But  what  is  meant,  the  reader  will  ask,  by  this  word  "cove> 
nant"  (berith)}  It  would  take  too  long  to  discuss  it  philologi- 
cally  and  exegetically.  It  means,  however,  when  used  in  con- 
nexion with  God,  a  law  to  the  observance  of  which  certain 
promises  are  attached.  Looking  at  the  history  of  Israel  from 
the  vantage-ground  of  Christianity,  we  may  say  that  it  is  a 
history  of  "  covenants."  From  time  to  time  God  has  revealed 
His  will  to  chosen  persons,  telling  them  how  He  would  be 
worshipped,  how  men  should  behave  themselves  to  be  like  their 
God,  and  how  He  would  reward  them  for  their  faithful  obedi- 
ence. Such  a  revelation  is,  in  Hebrew  phrase,  a  "covenant." 
There  was  a  "covenant"  with  Abraham,  with  Moses,  and,  we 
might  analogically  say,  with  each  of  those  prophets  who  had 
something  really  new  to  declare,  such  as  Hoseaand  Isaiah  and 
Jeremiah.  And  now  the  religious  stagnation  or  retrogression 
which  has  prevailed  since  the  time  of  Micah  is  all  at  once 
interrupted  by  the  ratification  of  a  fresh  covenant.  Not  that 
either  "  new  "  or  "  fresh  "  is  to  be  taken  literally  ;  there  is  but 
one  "covenant"  between  Jehovah  and  Israel — that  of  Sinai, 
and  all  other  covenants  are  but  developments  of  its  meaning. 
In  other  words,  that  "  prophet  like  unto  Moses  "  and  his  faith- 
ful priestly  coadjutor  of  whom  I  have  spoken  were  favoured 
with  a  fuller  intuition  of  that  which  was  involved  in  the  old 
Mosaic  covenant.  They  were  not  great  men  ;  they  could  not 
take  the  intellectual  initiative  like  Hosea  and  Jeremiah  ;  but  the 
peculiar  combination  of  prophecy  and  law  which  they  pro- 
duced was  something  which  had  not  yet  been  seen,  and  from 
which  even  the  Christian  student  need  not  disdain  to  learn.  It 
was  a  "covenant" — that  is,  God  vouchsafed  to  make  Himself 
authoritatively  known  to  the  Jews  in  the  way  best  suited  to 
their  actual  stage  of  development.  And  (if  1  may  glide  from 
an  academic  into  a  popular  religious  phraseology)  just  as  we 
through  our  parents  at  the  font  thankfully  accepted  God's  cove- 
nant in  Christ,  and  responded  to  it  by  a  promise  before  God 

*  Klosterniann  has  pointed  out  that  3  Kings  xxiii.  31  must  originally 
have  stood  after  v.  3. 


HE  THAT  SEEKETH,   FINDETH." 


S5 


had 


and  tlie  Church  to  make  His  commandments,  promises,  and 
threatenings  the  rule  of  our  lives,  so  did  the  men  of  Judah 
through  their  representatives  at  this  memorable  assembly. 

This  in  itself  is  a  sufficiently  unexpected  result.  Could  we 
have  believed  that  those  who  till  now  had  not  only  exercised 
boundless  freedom  in  the  choice  of  a  sanctuary,  but  associated 
Jehovah  with  a  number  of  other  "  divinities,"  including  even 
the  cruel  Moloch,'  would  at  the  call  of  Josiah  and  on  the  reading 
of  a  hitherto  unknown  book  permit  their  moral  and  religious 
life  to  be  revolutionized  ?  It  is  a  riddle  which  at  first  sight 
baffles  our  comprehension.  For  an  Israelitish  king  was  not  an 
absolute  sovereign,  and  could  not  (like  German  princes  in  the 
i6th  century)  convert  his  people  by  force,  nor  had  Josiah  the 
assistance  of  a  prophet  with  that  wonderworking  power  and 
unique  popular  authority  which  according  to  tradition  belonged 
to  Elijah. 

Let  me  now  quote  a  portion  of  the  nth  chapter  of  Jeremiah's 
book.  It  will  perhaps  assist  us  in  solving  this  psychological 
problem,  and  suggest  the  reflexion  that,  if  Josiah  had  no 
Elijah  to  help  him,  he  had  a  friend  and  fellow-worker  who  was 
better  adapted  to  the  altered  times. 

The  word  which  came  to  Jeremiah  from  Jehovah^  as 
follows : — 

.  .  .  And  thou  shalt  speak*  unto  the  men  of  Judah  and  unto 
the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  in  these  terms,  Thus  said  Jehovah, 
the  God  of  Israel,  Cursed  be  the  man  that  heareth  not  the 
words  of  this  covenant,  which  I  commanded  your  fathers  when 
1  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt — the  iron  furnace, 
saying.  Hearken  to  my  voice,  and  carry  them  out  \i.e.,  these 
words]  in  the  fullest  measure,  so  shall  ye  become  to  me  a  people 
and  I  shall  become  to  you  %  God,  that  I  may  maintain  the  oath 
which  I  swore  unto  your  fathers  that  I  would  give  a  land 

■  I  retain  the  received  way  of  denominating  the  heavenly  Fire-god. 
But,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  it  is  at  least  very  doubtful 
whether  Malik  =  Moloch  ("king ")  ought  to  be  reg?  ded  as  a  proper  name. 

■  I  folic,  the  Septuagint  in  reading  the  and  person  singular.  The 
received  Hebrew  text  has  the  2nd  pars,  plur.,  and  prefixes,  Hear  ye  the 
words  of  this  covenant.  This  is  evidently  wrong.  The  original  reading 
may  have  been,  Publish  thou  the  words,  &c. ;  or  else  the  whole  of  the 
opening  clause  may  have  become  illegible  in  the  standard  manuscript  upon 
Which  our  text  ultimately  depends,  and  the  words  which  now  supply  its 
place  may  have  been  inserted  by  guess  from  verse  6. 


5«> 


JEREMIAH. 


tr'l 


■$,'■• 


lowing  with  milk  and  honey^  as  it  is  this  day.    And  / 

answered  and  said^  Amen,  Jehovah. 

Thus  spake  Jehovah  unto  me^  Recite  all  these  words  in  the 
dtiss  oj  Judah  and  in  the  streets  oj  Jerusalem^  sayings  Hear  ye 
the  words  oJ  this  covenant^  and  carry  them  out.  For  solemnly 
have  I  warned  your  fathers,  when  I  brought  them  up  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt  {and)  unto  this  day,  from  earliest  dawn.  Obey  my 
voice.  But  they  have  not  obeyed,  nor  bent  their  ear,  but  have 
walked  every  one  in  the  stubbornness  of  his  evil  heart,  so  2 
brought  up07i  them  all  the  words  of  this  covenant  which  I  com- 
manded them  to  carry  out,  but  they  carried  not  out  (Jer.  xi. 
1-8). 

I  do  not  know  how  to  understand  this  prophecy  (the  impor- 
tance  of  which  is  shown  by  the  double  form  in  which  it  has 
been  handed  down,*  and  which  is  clearly  isolated  from  the 
context),  except  by  supposing  that  Jeremiah  undertook  an 
itinerating  mission  to  the  people  of  Judah,  beginning  with  the 
capital,  in  order  to  set  forth  the  main  objects  of  Deuteronomy, 
and  to  persuade  iiif.n  to  live  in  accordance  with  its  precepts.' 
The  ideas  and  phiaseology  of  the  section  are  in  some  respects 
so  akin  to  those  of  the  kernel  of  Deuteronomy,^  and  the  refer- 
ence to  the  curses  threatened  for  disobedience  reminds  us  so 
strongly  of  Josiah's  reference  (2  Kings  xxii.  13)  to  the  wrath 
that  is  kindled  against  us,  because  our  fathers  have  not 
hearkened  unto  the  words  of  this  book,^  that  the  supposition 


*  Verses  2-5  give  one  form  of  it,  and  verses  6-8  ar.other.  R.V.  has 
rightly  altered  A.  Vs.,  "  Then  the  Lord  said"  (w.  6)  into  "  And  the  Lord 
said." 

■  It  is  now  seventeen  vears  since  I  consulted  Dahler's  French  worJt  on 
Jjremiah  (a  vols.,  1825,  1830),  but  I  well  remember  the  forcible  way  in 
v/hich  the  al'jve  hj'pothesis  is  presented. 

3  By  the  word  "  kernel"  I  mean  the  earliest  and  most  original  part  of 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  Comp,  Jer.  xi.  3  with  Deut.  xxviii.  15-19  ; 
ver.  4  with  Deut  iv.  20  ("  iron  furnace"),  xxvi.  17,  18,  xxvii.  9,  xxix.  la 
(Israel  a  people  to  Jehovah,  and  Jehovah  a  God  to  Israel)  :  ver.  5  with 
Deut.  vi.  3  ("aland  flowing,"  &c.) ;  ver.  8  with  Deut.  xxviii.  15  ^" words," 
in  "all  the  words,"="  things  spoken  of,"  i.e.,  in  thii  context,  curses  such 
as  those  in  Deut.  xxviii.  16-68  ;  see  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  24,  "all  the  curses  "). 
Comp.  also  Jer.  vii.  23-26. 

*  I  am  well  aware  of  the  critical  uncertainty  of  thio  pun  of  the  narrative 
in  Kings.  But  it  does  net  seem  to  me  sufhcient  to  compel  me  to  pasa 
over  this  very  obvious  comparison.  Kuenen  and  Dillmann,  at  any  rate, 
accept  Deut.  xxviii.,  which  contains  the  blessings  and  curses,  as  the  work 


: 
■ 


m 


"he  that  SEEKETH,  FINDETH." 


$1 


cannot  be  evaded  or  dispensed  with.  It  is  just  possible  that 
there  is  a  faint  recollection  of  this  mission  of  Jeremiah  in  the 
not  very  accurate  account  of  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  pre- 
served in  that  recast  of  historical  traditions  and  pious  fancies 
made,  long  after  the  return  from  the  Captivity,  in  what  we  call 
the  Books  of  Chronicles.  There  we  read — what  is  entirely  op- 
posed to  the  earlier  account  in  Kings — that  Jehoshaphat  took 
away  the  "  high  places,"  and  sent  nine  Levites  and  two  priests 
throughout  all  the  cities  of  Judah  to  teach  "the  book  of 
Jehovah's  idrah  "  (2  Chron.  xvii.  6-9).  It  is  possible  that  the 
compiler  of  Chronicles  (a  man  of  fervent  piety  from  whom  we 
have  much  to  learn,  but  most  inaccurate  as  a  historian)  ante- 
dated the  mission  of  the  preachers  of  the  law,  just  as  he 
antedated  the  full  development  of  the  musical  service  in  the 
temple.  At  any  rate,  if  Jeremiah's  words  mean  anything  at 
all,  they  cannot  mean  less  than  this — that  he  went  about  in 
Jerusalem  and  the  provincial  cities  (possibly  as  far  as  Shiloh, 
vii.  12)  explaining  a  book  which  closely  resembled  our 
Deuteronomy,  and  persuading  the  Jews  to  live  according  to  it. 
Put  this  fact  side  by  side  with  that  of  the  great  national 
assembly  which  seems  to  have  passed  off  so  smoothly,  although 
the  object  to  be  obtained  was  so  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the 
majority  of  the  Jews.  Does  not  the  one  fact  illustrate  the 
other  ?  Jeremiah,  I  know,  is  reluctant  to  admit  that  his  preach- 
ing met  with  the  least  success  :  but  that  is  because  he  put  his 
notes  and  impressions  into  shape  at  so  late  a  period  in  his 
ministry.  That  which  he  knew  had  been  all  along  his  great 
object,  he  did  fail  for  the  most  part  to  obtain.  But  this  is  quite 
consistent  with  his  having  had  those  temporary  successes  which 
still  relieve  the  ^loom  of  ministerial  disappointment.  One  such 
he  probably  had,  as  we  have  seen,  on  the  first  news  of  the 
approach  of  the  Scythians  ;  may  he  not  have  had  another  when, 
in  the  enthusiasm  of  youth  and  the  strength  of  a  Divine 
call,  he  carried  with  him  as  the  textbook  of  his  missionary 
addresses  the  first  complete  account  of  Israel's  holy  religion  ? 
The  reader  will  recall  that,  according  to  the  view  which  I 
endeavoured  to  make  plausible,  Jeremiah  was  a  reformer  in 


of  the  Deuteronotnist,  and  if  it  be  such,  I  have  a  right,  on  the  authority 
of  2  Kings  xxii.  13  (comp.  v.  11)  to  assume  that  Josiah  read  it  and  wai 
niuih  affected  by  it. 


58 


JSREMIAH. 


'H^  a! 


!      M 


spirit  before  he  was  called  to  be  a  prophet,  and  beU  nged  to  • 
band  of  religious  friends  who  clustered  around  the  pious  boy- 
king  Josiah.  He  will  remember  how  long  the  friends  waited  in 
suspense  for  some  sign  from  heaven  or  some  practical  scheme 
of  reform.  The  sign  from  heaven  had  come,  and  both  Zepha- 
niah  and  Jeremiah  had  sought  in  vain  to  get  the  people  to  see  its 
meaning.  1  he  Jews  did  indeed  see  their  danger,  and,  asakind 
of  life-insurance,  made  some  hasty  promises  of  amendment,  but 
no  radical  change  followed  (Jer.  iii.  4,  5),  And  now,  full  of 
renewed  zeal,  Jeremiah  goes  forth  with  a  practical  scheme  rf 
reform,  of  which  he  may  or  may  not  !:now  the  authors,  but 
which  he  has  recognized  as  an  inspired  interpretation  of  the 
fundamental  ideas  of  the  covenant  of  Sinai.  He  has  felt  its  full 
power  himself,  and  has  from  the  heart  said  '  Amen '  to  its  varied 
contents.  But  the  principle  to  which,  as  it  would  seem,  he 
makes  his  first  appeal  in  addressing  his  countrymen  is  that  of 
fear.  He  doubtless  knew  the  coarseness  of  their  moral  fibre, 
and  hoped  against  hope  that  those  who  began  with  fear  would 
end  with  love,  and  that  the  promises  would  seem  all  the  sweeter 
when  the  threatenings  had  been  realized  in  their  awful  serious- 
ness. It  is  not  Christ's  way  ;  but  then  Christ  addressed  a 
prepared  people,  and  without  concealing  the  dark  side  of 
heavenly  truth,  He  trusted  far  more  to  the  attractive  power  of 
the  promises  than  to  the  deterrent  efficacy  of  the  threatenings 
of  the  Gospel.  Jeremiah  tried  the  opposite  plan  and  failed.  In 
the  world  of  grace  as  well  as  in  that  of  nature,  it  sometimes 
seems  as  if  God  made  experiments,  before  the  best  and  final 
plan  were  adopted.  Not  that  God  is  finite,  but  that  in  this  as  in 
other  respects  His  works  are  adapted  to  the  faculties  of  those 
who  are  to  study  them.  Nature  without  evolution,  and  revelation 
without  historical  progress,  would  both  of  them  lose  half  thttir 
charms. 

Jeremiah  is  not  as  yet  to  any  great  extent  a  type  of  Christ ; 
he  will  become  more  so  later  on,  when  his  personal  training  is 
more  complete,  and  he  has  received  the  crowning  revelation  of 
his  life.  At  present  he  is  but  continuing  the  work  of  Elijah  on 
Mount  Carmel ;  or  rather,  the  second  Elijah  is  the  iconoclast 
Josiah,  and  Jeremiah  in  his  missionary  circuit  prepares  the  way 
for  that  series  of  violent  measures  which  is  described  in  2  Kin^^s 
xxiii.  I  cannot  see  that  the  part  played  by  Josiah  was  as  noble 
as  that  of  Jeremiah  ;  in  the  roll  of  honour  the  royal  iconoclast 


tot 
boy- 
led  in 


"HE  THAT  SEEKETH,  FINDETH." 


59 


must  stand  below  the  preacher.  It  was  a  confes'tion  of  weak- 
ness,  however,  that  both  Hilkiah  and  Jeremiah  allowed  Josiah 
(who  would  surely  have  respected  their  opposition)  to  commit 
these  arbitrary  and  in  some  cases  cruel  acts.  At  any  rate,  if 
the  latter  trusted  the  results  of  his  mission,  why  did  he  not  bid 
Josiah  wait  for  a  spontaneous  iconoclastic  movement  of  his 
(Jeremiah's)  converts  (comp.  Isa.  xxx.  22)  ?  Or  why  did  he  not 
throw  himself  at  the  king's  feet,  and  beg  and  implore  what  he 
might  not  venture,  like  Elijah,  to  command  ?  Had  even  he 
learned  no  lesson  from  the  transitoriness'  of  Hezekiah's  violent 
reforms  ?  Yes ;  but  not  all  that  he  might  have  learned.  He 
knew  that  nothing  but  a  fresh  revelation  could  induce  the  people 
either  to  initiate  or  to  accept  at  the  king's  hand  the  much  needed 
reforms,  but  he  did  not  yet  see  that  without  a  true  spiritual 
motive,  without  conversion  of  heart,  the  moral  standard  and  the 
ideal  of  life  must  remain  low,  and  the  new  law  of  worship 
simply  issue  in  a  fresh  idolatry.  This  was  the  reason  why  both 
he  and  Hilkiah  stood  by  while  Josiah  executed  judgment  on  the 
outward  forms  of  superstition.  King,  prophet,  and  priest  were 
alike  victims  of  the  delusion  that,  when  the  storm  of  revolution 
had  raged  itself  out,  the  Divine  law  would  become  the  national 
rule  of  life,  and  so  a  claim  would  be  established  to  the  blessings 
promised  by  Jehovah  to  the  righteous  nation. 

I  am  not  blaming,  however  much  I  may  pity,  these  great 
men ;  we  can  but  dimly  imagine  the  debasing  influence  of  the 
worships  which  Jeremiah  preached  against  and  Josiah  violently 
put  down  ;  and  if  the  prophet's  hearers  were  not  to  be  trusted 
to  rise  of  their  own  accord  against  these  abominations,  this  does 
but  increase  our  surprise  at  the  ultimate  results  of  the  divine 
education  of  this  very  people.  Nowhere  is  the  fact  of  a  Divine 
Providence  so  powerfully  attested  to  the  religious  mind  as  in  the 
later  history  of  the  people  of  Israel. 

*  It  has  been  suggested  tliat  the  account  of  Hezekiah's  reforming  measures 
in  3  Kings,  xviii.  4  contains  anachronisms,  the  writer  not  being  willing  to 
suppose  that  so  pious  a  king  would  have  left  the  "  high  places"  untouched. 
Certainly  the  Chronicler  commits  just  such  an  anachronism  in  his  account 
cf  Jehoshaphat  (3  Chron.  xvii.  6).  But  is  it  likely  that  any  of  the  writers 
concerned  in  the  narrative  now  before  us  were  quite  so  devoid  of  historical 
iense?    This  demands  a  further  examination. 


CHAPTER  VI. 


THE  ANCIENT  LAW  TRANSFORMED. 


The  publication  of  the  first  Scripture,  its  significance— The  leading  ideas  ol 
Deuteronomy — The  effects  of  the  recognition  of  the  Lawbook. 

It  is  mot  my  design  in  the  present  chapter  to  discuss  the 
details  of  the  historical  passage  which  describes  the  reforma- 
tion of  Josiah  Beyond  question,  it  was  a  rough  and  vigorous 
reformation,  which  could  never  have  been  eflfected  but  for  the 
*'  Mosaic  "  lawbook,  and  very  different  from  the  compromising 
measures  of  the  newly  established  Church  in  the  country  districts 
of  the  Roman  empire.'  Both  in  the  capital  and  in  the  provinces, 
as  far  even  as  Bethel  and  the  cities  of  Samaria  (where  a  new 
heathenism  had  joined  itself  to  the  old  heretical  worship,  2  Kings 
xvii.  29-31),  a  work  of  purification  by  destruction  was  carried 
out  which  is  quite  unique  in  the  earlier  chapters  of  the  ancient 
history  of  religion.  Where  in  fact  can  we  find  a  parallel  to  the 
zeal  of  Josiah  in  the  Semitic  East  till  we  come  to  Mohammed  ? " 
and  if  the  non-appearance  of  dolmens  and  the  like  in  Western 
Palestine  be  due  (as  Conder  plausibly  holds  3)  to  the  reformations 

»  See  Albert  Marignan,  "  Le  Triomphe  de  I'Eglise  au  quatri^me  siicle" 
(Paris,  1887). 

■  The  heretical  Egyptian  king  Khuenaten  (Amenhotep  iv.)  did  but  erase 
the  name  of  the  old  Theban  deity  whose  worship  he  superseded  by  that  of 
the  solar  disk.  And  in  spite  of  Mohammed's  zeal  against  idols,  he  left  not 
only  the  "  black  stone  "  at  Mecca,  but  numerous  dolmens  all  over  Arabia — 
the  anfdd  or  sacrificial  stones  (lit.  "standing  stones  "  =  Heb.  tnoffibdth, 
"pillars,"  Deut.  xii.  3.  &c.),  against  which,  however,  he  warns  his  followers 
("Korin,"  V.  92). 

3  "Syrian  Stone-Lore,"  p,  126  ;  comp.  "  Heth  and  Moab,"  pp.  264-5, 
Stanley,  "Jewish  Church,"  i.  59.    Mr.  Oliphant  found  four  huge  prostrate 


THE  ANCIENT  LAW  TRANSFORMED. 


6i 


of  Hezekiah  (?)  and  Josiah,  these  kings  of  Judah  eiifecteda  more 
complete  abolition  of  idols  than  even  Mohammed.  Of  idols, 
but  not  of  idolatry.  The  altar-stones  and  pillars  might  be 
broken,  and  the  chapels  destroyed,  but  the  old  sanctity  still 
clung  to  the  sites,  as  Jeremiah  found  later  on  to  his  cost.  Did 
the  prophet  co-operate  with  Josiah  in  his  iconoclastic  work  ?  So 
far  as  the  temple  was  concerned,  it  is  possible  enough  that  he 
did,  but  I  prefer  to  think  of  him,  not  so  much  as  the  iconoclast, 
but  as  the  persuasive  preacher.  And  what  if  he  did  represent 
Deuieronamy  to  be  the  work  of  Moses?  md  not  the  illusion 
cover  an  important  truth  ?  Did  not  the  authors  of  the  new  law- 
book enable  men  to  see  into  the  heart  of  the  Mosaic  covenant, 
by  speaking  to  them  as  Moses  would  have  spoken  had  he  come 
to  life  again  as  a  prophet  and  a  reformer  ?  Other  writers  had 
made  the  same  attempt  in  a  more  mechanical  way ;  their 
work  had  failed  however  to  produce  any  considerable  effect. 
Collections  of  primitive  laws  had  been  made,  based  perhaps  on 
Mosaic  or  early  post-Mosaic  material  (comp.  Hos.  viii.  12 '), 
among  which  we  may  safely  include  the  Decalogue  (Exod.  xx. 
1-17,  comp.  Deut.  v.  6-21),  the  greater  Book  of  the  Covenant 
(Exod.  XX.  22-xxiii.),  and  the  lesser  Book  of  the  Covenant  (Exod. 
xxxiv.  11-26),  which,  as  many  critics  consider,  ought  properly 
to  be  arranged  as  a  second  Decalogue.'  But  there  is  no  proof 
that  those  collections  enjoyed  any  public,  that  is,  national  recog- 
nition, and  their  circulation  was  probably  limited  to  the  priests 
(if  the  collection  was  a  ritualistic  one),  and  to  the  few  edu- 
cated people  among  the  laity  (if  the  collection  related  to  social 
duties).  It  is  worth  noticing  that  the  Deuteronomist  (even  if 
two  authors  are  concerned,  we  may  sometimes  for  variety  or 
convenience  use  the  singular)  represents  Moses  as  sending  the 
individual  Israelite  to  "the  priests  the  Levites  "  ( =  "  the  Levitical 
priests")  for  an  authoritative  "direction"  {torah).  He  doubt- 
less reflects  the  customs  of  his  time,  and  we  may  assume  (a 
good  commentary  on  Leviticus  would  amply  justify  the  assump- 

slabs  of  stone  which,  he  says,  had  evidently  once  formed  a  dolmen,  near  tha 
secluded  village  of  Mugheir  in  the  northern  Samaritan  hill-country  ("Haifa," 

P-  337). 

»  Render,  "  I  am  wont  to  write  unto  him,  &c.,  but  they  are  counted  as  a 
itrange  thing."    Comp.  Smend,  "  Moses  apud  Prophefas  "  (1875),  p.  13. 

■  Comp.  Briggs,  "Old  Testament  Student  "(Chicago),  vol.  ii.  (i88a- 
1883),  pp.  264-273. 


63 


JEREMIAH. 


f 


tion)  that  there  were  various  collections  of  legal  traditions  (at 
first  unwritten,  and  then  written)  in  the  possession  of  priestly 
families  on  the  basis  of  which  the  priests  ("those  that  handle 
the  tdrah"  Jer.  ii.  8,  comp  Deut.  xxxiii.  lo)  gave,  orally,  their 
tdrah  or  "  directions." 

Still,  though  many  may  have  carried  their  perplexities  to  the 
priests,  some — that  is,  of  course,  the  more  educated — would 
sometimes  at  least,  avail  themselves  of  such  written  records  as 
were  extant.  For  these,  and  for  the  priests  themselves,  and 
above  all,  for  the  general  life  of  the  nation,  it  was  of  the  utmost 
importance  that  the  legal  traditions  of  Israel  should  be  re- 
vised, harmonized,  corrected,  reor'^anized.  For  it  is  more 
than  doubtful  whether  all  the  pre-Deuteronomic  collections  of 
laws  subserved  the  interests  of  a  truly  progressive  and  in  some 
measure  spiritual  religion.  There  are  indications  enough  that 
the  religious  literature  of  the  Israelites  was  not  entirely  con- 
fined to  those  whom  we  look  up  to  as  the  inspir«^d  writers,  and 
it  appears  from  a  passage  in  Jeremiah  that  the  forn^alist  priests 
and  lying  prophets  employed  the  pen  to  give  greater  currency 
to  their  teaching.  How  do  ye  say  (the  question  is  addressed  to 
the  laity),  We  are  vHse,  and  the  law  of  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  is 
with  us  f  But,  behold  (this  is  the  prophet's  answer),  the  false 
pen  of  the  scribes  hath  wrought  falsely  (marg.,  hath  made  of  ii 
falsehood)  Jer.  viii.  8,  R.V.  The  prophet  cannot  refer  here 
to  Deuteronomy  ;  he  can  only  mean  something  analogous  to 
the  heretical  Gospels  of  early  Christian  times — something 
which,  though  it  pretended  to  a  divine  sanction,  was  really 
subservient  to  false  religious  principles. 

It  was  a  truly  memorable  event  this  publication  of  the  first 
Scripture,  for  henceforth  it  became  possible  for  the  religion  of 
an  insignificant  Asiatic  people  to  survive  a  national  catastrophe 
and  become  the  faith  of  the  human  race.  A  poor  Bible,  some 
one  may  say.  Yes  ;  but  it  was  a  Bible  admirably  adapted  to 
those  times.  And  does  not  the  distinctive  quality  of  our  Bible 
consist  partly  in  this — that  it  contains  the  comparatively  poor 
religious  standards  of  past  ages  ?  Just  consider  what  a 
difference  this  makes  between  a  Christian  and  a  Mohammedan 
Reformation.  Moslems,  not  less  than  Jews  and  Christians,  are 
a  "people  of  the  Book"*;  but  their  Book  only  belongs  to  a 

*  Mohammed  uses  this  phrase  of  Jews  and  ChrisUans  in  "  Kor&o," 


THE  ANCIENT  LAW  TRANSFORMED. 


63 


IS  (at 
estly 
indle 
their 


lingl'e  period  and  comes  from  a  single  man.  To  reform 
Mohammedanism  is  therefore  to  go  back  twelve  hundred  years 
and  believe  as  Mohammed  believed.  But  a  Christian  Reformer 
is  not  thus  rigidly  confined  to  the  standards  of  a  single  age  or 
person.'  By  comparing  Scripture  with  Scriptu  w  ..1  a  critical  but 
religiously  sympathetic  spirit,  *  he  discovers  which  are  really 
the  essential  doctrines  and  the  fundamental  facts,  and  exercises 
the  right  of  restating  them  to  his  own  generation,  just  ab 
prophets  and  reformers  did  of  old  to  theirs.  That  inspired 
prophet  and  priest  (so  great  in  their  self-effacing  humility)  who 
composed  the  main  part  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  re- 
created Moses  for  their  own  age.  They  adapted  older  laws 
with  the  utmost  freedom,  but  in  the  spirit  of  Moses  and  his 
equally  inspired  successors,  "bringing  forth  out  of  their 
treasury  tb'.ngs  new  and  old."  And  whenever  the  same  need  is 
felt;  it  should  be  the  Christian's  happy  faith  that  the  right  man 
will  be  sent  for  the  task. 

Deuteronomy  may  be  a  poor  Bible,  from  a  modern  point  of 
view ;  but  it  is  rich  in  significance,  if  judged  by  a  historic 
standard.  It  sought  to  place  the  whole  moral  and  spiritual  life 
of  Israel  upon  a  new  basis.  It  condenses  the  essence  of  the 
past,  and  anticipates  the  future  developments  of  Judaism  (in 
Ezra's  form  of  it)  and  Christianity.  And  upon  the  whole  in 
how  effective  a  style  !  As  Ewald  has  veil  said,  "  A  work 
which  transformed  the  ancient  law  with  such  creative  power,  so 
emphatically  threatened  all  those  who  despised  it  with  the 
severest  Divine  penalties,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  spoke  with 
such  tenderness  and  i\uman  feeling  about  its  observance,  was 
in  every  respect  adapted  to  make  a  profound  impression  on  its 
readers,  and  to  produce  the  effect  for  which  it  was  designed." ' 
It  could  not  have  been  composed  by  a  mere  priest.  The 
Deuteronomic  tordk  is  in  fact  the  joint  work  of  at  least  two  of 

*  The  Christian  religion  of  the  nineteenth  ceivtury  cannot  be  the  same  as 
that  of  the  second  or  the  fourth  ;  it  need  not  be  opposed  to  it,  but  it 
cannot  be  identical  with  it.  Dr.  Bigg,  in  his  "Bamptor.  Lectures"  (1886), 
has  made  a  similar  remark  of  the  Christian'.ty  of  the  fourth  century  as  com- 
pared with  that  ot  the  second. 

*  Some  readers  will  mentally  make  the  comment  that  this  union  is 
mconceivable.  But  are  there  then  no  living  persons  in  whom  this  union  is 
an  a:complislied  fact?  The  infinite  variety  possible  in  the  Christian  life  is 
only  row  beginning  to  be  realized. 

>      History  of  Israel,"  iv.  327. 


ri 


JkjA 


'II ! 


64 


JEREMIAH. 


i  si    '.'• 

i  I  •'- 

i 

m 

^i 

■1, 

II 


s 


i         I 


the  noblest  members  of  tVic  prophetic  and  the  priestly  orders 
each  caring  for  that  pa-ticular  jewel  which  God  in  His  provi* 
dcnc<».  had  deposited  with  hin.  From  the  prophetic  writer  comes 
the  width  of  vir  so  c"  pic  ous,  for  ixample,  in  x.  1^-22,  and 
which  .  o.uraiti  i/aagely  *  ith  the  exclusivcness  imposed  by 
tradition  upon  his  p«.iesti>  >  ompanion  (see  xxiii.  3-8  ;  xxv.  17-19  ; 
XX.  17).  To  ihe  ;  a  i.  -^ue  the  general  conception  of  a 
religious  organization  of  the  .  ...onal  life,  as  well  as  the  arrange- 
ments of  its  details.  He  too  is  animated,  within  the  sphere  of 
Israelitish  interests,  by  a  fine  spirit  of  humanity,  which  some- 
times even  leads  him  to  make  impracticable  requirements  (see 
e.£:  XX.  1-9).  A  poor  Bible  ?  Nay ;  such  a  combination  of 
priestly  energy  and  policy  with  the  idealizing  prophetic  spirit 
was  the  greatest  work  which  the  Divine  Spirit  acting  upon  the 
human  had  yet  produced. 

Of  this  remarkable  book  the  following  are  the  four  chief 
ideas,  i.  Jehovah  is  the  one  God  worthy  of  the  name  Elohim 
— "  the  Elohim,"  as  he  is  called  both  by  the  Deuteronomist  and 
by  the  disciple  who  added  to  his  work  (iv.  35,  39,  vii.  9).  It 
was  enough  to  assert  the  comparative  inability  of  other  gods 
to  help— see  iii.  24,  iv.  7,  and  comp  •*  the  God  of  the  gods 
(Elohim)  and  the  Lord  of  the  lords,  the  great,  strong,  and 
fearful  God  (El.),"  x.  17.  So  in  vi.  4  we  read,  Bear,  O  Israel; 
Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Jehovah  {i.e.,  Jehovah  is  unique  in  kind 
and  in  nature).  We  need  not  be  surprised,  however,  that  in 
some  of  their  moods  the  writers  regard  the  other  gods  as 
mere  wood  and  stone— iv.  28,  xxviii.  36,  64,  xxix.  17  ;  comp. 
Jer.  ii.  27.  2.  The  life  of  the  community  in  all  its  aspects  is  to 
be  worthy  of  the  servants  of  a  holy  God.  Israel  is  to  be,  as 
another  writer  expresses  it,  "  a  kingdom  of  priests  and  a  holy 
nation  "  (Exod.  xix.  6.)  3.  There  is  to  be  only  one  temple  ;  the 
many  local  shrines  and  stone  monuments  of  a  lower  worship 
are  to  be  destroyed.  This  was  on  account  of  the  licentious 
nature-worship  which  connected  itself  with  the  festivals  held  in 

«« \^\ct\^  ,jo/.ae,,»  I    A    One  tribe  alone 


open 


igh  pis 


(i 


*  Such  "  chapels  "  as  may  have  existed  must  have  been  for  the  most  part 
rather  rude  ;  the  essential  thing  was  the  altar.  Comp.  the  Homeric  ri^itvoQ 
fitufiSs  re  0vi}tii  ("  II."  viii.  48  ;  xxiii.  148  ;  "  Odyss."  vii.  363),  The  later 
Jewish  traditions  on  the  construction  of  these  chapels  are  put  together  in 
Ley's  "  Neuhebraisches  Worterbuch,'"  art.  bdmdh.  See  also  Ewald, 
"  Hu'toiy  of  Israel, "  iii.  306  note. 


THE  ANCIENT  LAW  TRANSFORMED. 


65 


opposition  to  the  custom  of  the  r.  Jithern  kingdom ').  is  to  supply 
ministers  for  the  sanctuary  ;  +hey  are  to  be  no  mere  servants  0/ 
the  king  (contrn'=t  2  Sam.  viii.  17,  xx.  25),  but  to  have  an  inherent 
auuiority  of  their  own.  Not  all  Levites,  however,  are  to  have 
the  duties  and  privileges  of  the  priesthood.  Those  who  are  not 
priests  may  be  local  teachers  and  judges,  and  are  commended 
to  the  liberality  of  their  fellow-Israelites  ;  and  any  Levite  may 
remove  from  the  country-districts  to  Jerusalem,  and  receive  a 
share  of  the  priestly  duties  and  emoluments.  These  ideas  pre 
inculcated  or  promoted  in  two  ways — by  series  of  definite  '  vi 
and  by  exhortations.  Hence  there  is  both  a  priestly  and  r  lio- 
phetic  element  in  Deuteronomy.  The  charm  of  the  bonV..  ifei 
in  the  sweetly  impressive  tone  of  the  prophetic  passage  E  * 
we  must  not  forget  the  Divine  sanction  given  afresh  to  ne 
principle  of  law ;  the  prophetic  element  does  but  sp  itualize 
the  legal.  And,  if  the  trite  but  natural  reflexion  .)  be 
pardoned,  the  Redeemer  has  delivered  His  followers  from  the 
"  curse  "  but  not  from  the  obligation  of  law.  Indeed,  was  it  not 
the  leading  object  of  His  holy  life  to  make  men  perform  the 
law  of  God — "  Ilis  Father  and  their  Father" — from  love  ?  And 
may  we  not  venture  to  say  that  the  authors  of  Deuteronomy 
have  so  transformed  their  hero  as  to  make  h'.n  a  true  though 
imperfect  type  of  Christ  ?  It  is  true  that  St.  John  says,  TAe  laiv 
was  given  through  Moses,  but  lovingkindness  and  truth  came 
through  Jesus  Christ  (John  i.  17),  apparently  assuming  an  anti- 
thesis between  them  ;  but  the  word  "  came  "  here  means  "  were 
fulfilled"  (see  Prov.  xiii.  12),  and  is  there  not  a  promise  or 
anticipation  of  the  Divine  lovingkindness  in  the  discourse ^  of 
Deuteronomy?  It  is  indeed  a  most  superficial  view  which 
treats  this  book  as  a  mere  legal  document.  The  Moses  whom 
it  brings  before  us  really  represents  noble  spirits  like  Jeremiah 
(whom  we  have  learned  to  regard  as  a  type  of  Christ).  He 
can  indeed  command,  but,  like  our  Lord,  he  prefers  to  persuade. 
He  does  not  refuse  to  incorporate  many  very  imperative  utter- 
ances— monuments  of  an  earlier  stage — into  his  so-called 
recapitulation  of  the  tordh.  There  are  whole  series  of  laws  in 
Deuteronomy  which  have  quite  the  short,  dictatorial  style  of 
the  old  legislation.  But  in  those  prophetic  passages  of  which 
I  spoke,  the  "stiffness  and  severity"  of  the  ancient  form  of 

'  We  must  remember  that  part  of   the  northern  kingdom  had  been 
attached  to  the  dominion  >  of  Josiah  (see  below). 


'i 


--  J 


1 

1  i  ■■ 

I'l 

III 

If? 

;■  'i  I 


ir 


66 


JEREMIAH. 


expression  disap^iears.  Moses  becomes  like  unto  Christ ;  he 
"speaks  in  his  own  name  to  the  people  ;  he  searches  out  ei^ery 
human  reason  which  could  operate  on  their  conscience,  and 
impel  them  to  keep  the  law  ;  and,  moved  by  the  warmth  of  his 
love,  he  speaks  to  the  heart,  because  the  action  of  this  alone 
can  proceed  from  love."  • 

That  the  view  of  Moses  and  his  teaching  given  in  Deuteronomy 
is  a  highly  idealized  one  could  not  escape  the  attention  even  of 
those  English  scholars  who  still  occupy  the  antitjuated  position 
of  Hengstenberg.  "  His  work  (z>.,  that  of  Moses),"  remarks 
one  of  the  youngest  and,  though  still  immature,  not  the  least 
able  of  the  number,  "  was  not  for  one  generation  :  *  mediator  of 
the  Old  Covenant,'  he  stands  high  above  all  other  prophets  and 
saints  ;  already  half  glorified,  no  longer  subject  to  the  limitations 
of  time,  he  snrveys  the  Israel  of  all  ages  until  the  coming  of 
Christ,  and  accordingly  his  work  assumes  (viz.  in  Deuteronomy) 
a  prospective  and  ideal  character,  so  striking  that  unbelieving 
critics  could  not  but  mistake  it  as  the  evidence  of  a  much  later 
origin." '  To  •*  unbelieving,"  say  rather  *•  modern,"  critics 
Deuteronomy  is  conspicuously  devoid  of  the  ecstatic  element 
which  theory  compels  this  writer  to  assume  ;  but  they  will  all 
gladly  welcome  the  admission  that  the  book  stands  by  itself, 
and  has  a  message  and  an  interest  for  the  Christian  as  well  as 
for  the  Jewish  Church. 

"  Love  is  life's  only  sign,"  says  the  poet  of  the  *'  Christian 
Year."  This  is  the  very  essence  of  the  religious  thinking  of  the 
Deuteronomist.  Israel,  like  the  Church,  has  been  " first  loved" 
by  Jehovah  ;  and  "  the  true  Israelite  is  he  who  loves  both  his 
fellow-Israelites  and  Jehovah  of  his  own  accord,  just  as  Jehovah 
of  His  own  accord  loved  Israel." '  This  truth  is  equally  set 
forth  in  Deuteronomy  and  in  the  Deuteronomist's  great 
spiritual  predecessor,  Hosea.  The  primal  love  of  Jehovah  to 
Israel  fills  the  foregrowid  of  each  writer's  discourse,  and  all 
human  relationships  within  the  Israelitish  community  are 
rooted  in  this.    This  love  is,  however,  a  morai  love  :  Jehovah 

»  Ewald,  "  History  of  Israel,"  iv.  323  (but  compare  the  more  nervous 
and  forcible  German  of  the  original  work). 

•  G.  Vos,  "The  Mosaic  Origin  of  the  Pentateuchal  Codes"  (Lend., 
1886),  p.  90.  The  author  is  an  American  of  Dutch  extraction,  and,  we  may 
confidently  expect,  will  before  ten  years  are  over  have  changed  his  opinions. 

>  Cheyne,  "  Hosea  "  (Cambridge  School  and  College  Bible),  p.  38  (Introd.) 


he 
Irery 
land 

his 
iione 


TUB  ANCIENT  LAW  TRANSFORMED. 


67 


to  not  more  loving  than  righteous.  Moral  and  spiritual  cor- 
ruption will  be — must  be  punished  by  ruin  and  destruction. 
The  abominations  old  and  new  which  disfigured  the  national 
religion  in  the  time  of  the  authors  of  Deuteronomy,  must,  as 
these  inspired  men  felt,  bring  God's  curse  upon  those  who 
practised  them.  This  is  the  essential  idea  of  the  awful  threats 
hurled  throughout  this  book  by  the  imaginary  Moses  at  the 
close  of  his  career  against  the  races  which  would  be  found  in 
Canaan  by  the  Israelites.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  cannot  be 
proved  on  historical  grounds  (see  "Encyclopaedia  Britannica," 
art.  "Canaanites")  that  those  races  were  either  expelled  or  de- 
stroyed by  the  invaders.  On  the  contrary,  they  were  gradually 
amalgamated  with  the  Israelites,  who  became  in  the  arts  of 
civilization,  and  too  often  in  the  practices  of  religion,  their 
willing  pupils.  It  was  never  the  policy  of  the  leaders  of  Israel 
to  lay  waste  cities  and  massacre  their  populations  indiscrimi< 
nately,  and  even  destroy  the  innocent  cattle.  "  These  are  only 
the  pictorial  mode  in  which  the  writers  (of  Deuteronomy)  express 
their  utter  abhorrence  of  the  practices  which  destroyed  the 
sanctity  of  Israel  and  insulted  the  majesty  of  Israel's  Holy 
One.  Strangely  do  these  fierce  sentiments  read  beside  the 
repeated  declarations  of  the  divine  compassion,  the  reiterated 
appeals  to  the  heart  of  loyalty  and  trust,  which  give  to  these 
pages  such  a  kindling  glow.  It  is  well  that  we  can  in  part 
resolve  the  inconsistency  which  seems  to  discredit  the  value 
of  a  piety  apparently  marred  by  such  bloodthirsty  ferocity. 
T*'^  writers  present  their  principles  under  the  limitations  of 
imaginary  circumstances  that  were  never  real."  *  This  will  not 
indeed  apply  to  the  case  of  the  Amalekites,  for  there  is  no 
evidence  that  this  race  was  religiously  dangerous  to  the 
Israelites.  The  explanation  is  given  in  Deut.  xxv.  17,  i8  ;  comp. 
Exod.  xvii.  14.  The  Deuteronomist  would  of  course  remember 
the  extinction  of  the  remnant  of  Amalek  in  the  days  of 
Hezekiah  (i  Chron.  iv.  41-43)' 

I  must  leave  the  reader  to  compare  the  reforming  measures 
of  Josiah  (2  Kings  xxiii.)  with  the  directions  in  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy.  Each  fact  will  be  found  to  correspond  to  some 
provision  in  the  law,  except  to  some  extent  the  treatment  of  the 
country  priests.    According  to  Deut.  xviii.  6-8,  the  Levites  of 

■  Carpenter,  article  on  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  "Modem  Review," 
April,  1883,  p.  374. 


m 


m 


u  i; 


i:  I        ! 


V       ' 


68 


JEREMIAH. 


the  provinces  were  to  have  equal  rites  with  the  priests  of  the 
temple,  if  they  came  up  to  Jerusalem.    But  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  9 
we  read  that  the  priests  whom  Josiah  brought  up  to  join  in  the 
Passover  were  not  permitted  to  sacrifice,  but  a^e  unleavened 
bread  among  their  brethren.^    This  fact  is  interesting,  because 
the  mention  of  it  seems  to  contradict  the  theory  that  Deutero- 
nomy  was  a  forgery,  composed  eiUier  (if  before  the  i8th  year 
of  Josiah)  in  the  interests  of  the  temple-priests,  or  (if  after  the 
Reformation)  to  justify  the  course  which  Josiah  and  his  friends 
had  taken.    Would  that  it  were  possible  to  compare  the  system 
exhibited  in  Deuteronomy  with  the  civil  and  religious  condition 
of  Judah  some  years  after  the  Reformation.    Were  the  laws 
strictly  observed  ?  and  above  all,  did  the  spiritual  teaching  of 
the  prophetic  passages  take  hold  upon  the  people  ?    Alas  !  we 
lack  the  material  for  a  satisfactory  answer  to  these  questions. 
The  account  of  Josiah's  reign  in  2   Kings   is    tantalizingly 
fragmentary,  and  it  is  impossible  to  point  definitely  to  any 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah's  as  describing  the  post-Reformation  part 
of  the  reign  of  Josiah.    That  Jeremiah  himself  was  deeply 
influenced  by  Deuteronomy  both  in  his  ideas    and    in   his 
phraseology,  is  no  new  proposition  to  the  reader.    The  phe- 
nomena have  led  some  critics  to  conjecture  that  he  even  wrote 
Deuteronomy.'    This  I  see  no  sufficient  reason  to  believe.    It 
is  certain,  however,  that  he  was  far  the  greatest  of  the  school  of 
writers  formed  upon  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy — a  school  which 
includes  historians,  poets,  and  prophets,  and  without  which  the 
Old  Testament  would  be  deprived  of  some  of  its  most  valued 
pages. 


« I  follow  Klostermann,  who  holds  that  the  words,  And  he  brought  up  all 
the  priests  from  the  cities  of  Judah  (2  Kings  xxiii.  8),  and  the  whole  of  ver. 
9,  are  misplaced,  and  belong  properly  to  a  description  of  the  preparations 
for  the  Passover  which  once  existed  but  is  not  now  preserved  (see  a  Kings 
xxiii.  21,  82).  This  view  accounts  for  the  mention  of  the  "unleavened 
bread."  Comp.,  however,  Robertson  Smith,  "The  Old  Testament  and 
the  Jewish  Church,"  pp.  360-362. 

•  Comp.  a  valuable  excursus  in  Kleinert's  "  Das  Deuteronomfum  und 
der  Deuteronomiker  "  {1872)  comparing  the  vocabulary  of  Deuteronomy 
with  that  of  other  books,  which  specially  notices  not  only  those  words  and 
phrases  which  occur  but  also  those  which  do  not  occur  in  the  Book  of 
Jeremiah,  and  which  also  distinguishes  between  Deuteronomy  proper  and 
the  additions  to  it. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

FRAUD  OR  NEEDFUL  ILLUSIOM? 

Criticism  of  the  narrative  in  a  Kings  xxii.— The  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Lawbook,  not  tenable — Reasons  for  this — Notes  on  the  allusions  to 
Egypt  in  Deuteronomy,  and  on  the  finding  of  the  Lawbooic. 

I  HAVE  endeavoured  in  the  preceding  chapter  to  give  a  general 
sketch  of  Josiah's  great  reformation,  without  diverting  the 
reader's  attention  to  modern  disputes  whether  of  a  historico- 
critical  or  of  a  purely  exegetical  character.  The  latter  are 
doubtless  more  capable  of  settlement,  but  the  former  raise 
points  of  a  more  wide-reaching  significance.  I  must  therefore 
at  least  touch  upon  the  former  ;  a  slight  treatment  of  historico- 
critical  questions  is  painful  to  me,  but  it  is  all  that  a  regard 
to  the  proportions  of  this  work  will  allow  me  to  attempt. 
A  monograph  on  Deuteronomy  would  only  make  incidental 
reference  to  Jeremiah  ;  a  monograph  on  Jeremiah,  especially  if 
not  written  solely  for  the  college  student,  can  only  present  a 
short  and  far  from  exhaustive  account  of  the  controversy  of 
Deuteronomy.  There  are  some  points  which  can  be  and  have 
been  settled,  nd  some  upon  which  a  degree  of  uncertainty  can- 
not be  avoideu  it  is  right  to  lay  most  stress  upon  the  former. 
Let  us  not  then  be  concerned  if  we  hear  it  said  in  some 
quarters  that  the  narrative  in  2  Kings  xxii.  contains  patent  im- 
probabilities,  and  is  inconsistent  with  facts  derived  from  the 
Book  of  Jeremiah.  There  are  many  other  ancient  narratives 
presumably  based  upon  tradition  which  are  in  the  main  accepted 
in  spite  of  similar  difficulties.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  so 
elaborate  a  narrative  is  purely  fictitious.  It  is  not  the  wont  of 
Hebrew  story-tellers  to  draw  exclusively  upon  their  imagination. 
Even  the  Chronicler,  who  is  sufficiently  biassed  by  what  we 
may  cal  his  ecclesiastical  interest,  would  not  have  indulged 


ifi 

i\ 
I 


70 


JIREMIAH. 


i       i 


in  so  flagrant  a  violation  of  the  truth  of  facts.*  And  if  the 
n?rrativ«  were  indeed  a  pure  fiction,  it  would  surely  not  have 
contained  an  incidental  and  perfectly  simple-minded  admission 
that  Josiah  had,  in  one  important  respect,  not  carried  out  the 
directions  of  the  lawbook  (2  Kings  xxiii.  9 ;  comp.  Deut 
xviii.  6,  7).  Two  points  at  least  ought,  I  think,  by  the  most 
sceptically  inclined  critic  to  be  accepted  as  historical,  viz. 
(i)  that  the  "lawbook"  was  published  in  Josiah's  reign  with 
the  view  of  recommending  certain  reforms  and  establishing  the 
national  religion  on  a  firmer  basis ;  and  (2)  that  Hilkiah,  one 
of  its  chief  proinulgators,  asserted  that  he  had  found  it  in 
the  temple.  The  view  implied  (probably)  in  2  Kings  xxii.  and 
expressed  in  2  Chron.  xxxiv.,  that  the  "  book  of  /draA  "  bad  the 
leader  of  the  Exodus  for  its  author,  cannot  from  a  critical 
point  of  view  be  maintained,  for  these  among  other  reasons, 
that  the  Deuteronomist  (if  we  may  so  for  convenience  refer  to 
the  author  or  joint-authors  of  the  original  Deuteronomy)  has 
(i)  employed  documents  manifestly  later  than  Moses,  (3)  made 
allusions  to  circumstances  which  only  existed  long  after  Moses, 
and  (3)  expressed  ideas  which  are  not  such  as  are,  psycho- 
logically speaking,  possible  in  the  age  of  Moses. 

I.  The  evidences  of  the  Deuteronomist's  dependence  on  the 
Yahvistic  narrative"  in  the  Pentateuch — written,  at  earliest 
(Dillmann),  in  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century  B.C.,  are  em- 
barrassing from  their  very  abundance.  Here  are  a  few  head- 
ings of  statements  borrowed  from  the  Yahvist,  which  I  quote 
with  but  little  attempt  at  selection  from  the  classical  treatise 


.  I 


■  It  is  worth  noticing  that  the  Chronicler  adopts  the  narrative  of  the 
finding  of  the  lawbook  in  the  temple  (2  Chron.  xxxiv.  I4--33),  although  its 
tendency  is  directly  opposed  to  his  own  simple-minded  view  that  the  Law 
had  been  the  foundation  of  Israelitish  life  since  the  time  of  Moses.  Con- 
sidering that  he  certainly  selects  and  modifies  his  material  with  a  view  to 
edification,  it  is  singular  that  he  adopts  a  statement  which,  on  the  hypothesis 
mentioned  above,  was  of  comparatively  recent  origin.  He  actually  does 
omit  another  important  part  of  the  narrative  in  Kings,  viz.,  the  description 
of  Josiah's  violent  measures,  which  implied  a  previous  strac  of  things  very 
Inconsistent  with  Mosaic  orthodoxy.  He  writes  as  a  de"^.u  churchman, 
but  h?  is  not  without  some  claim  to  the  character  of  a  historian. 

•  "  All  are  agreed  that  Deuteronomy  is  later  than  the  Yahvist,"  remarks  the 
orthodox  theologian,  H.  L.  Strack  ("  Handbuch  der  theologischen  Wis- 
senschaften,"  i.  136).  To  use  the  non-form  "Jehovist"  in  this  corinexio» 
would  be  absurd. 


FRAUD  OR  NEEDFUL  ILLUSION? 


V 


of  K.  H,  Graf.'  Jacob's  going  down  to  Egypt  with  se/enty 
persons  (Deut.  x.  22  ;  xxvi.  5).  The  oppression  of  the  Israelites 
and  the  Exodus  (vi.  12,  21,  22  ;  vii.  8,  18,  19;  and  often). 
The  destruction  of  the  Egyptians  in  the  Red  Sea  (xi.  4). 
The  manna  (viii.  3,  16).  The  water  out  of  the  rock  (viii.  15), 
The  temptation  at  Massa  (vi.  16,  ix.  22).  The  tables  of  stone 
and  the  golden  calf  (ix.  7-21).  The  forty  years'  wandering 
(viii.  2,  15,  xi.  5).  The  serpents  (viii.  15).  Balaam  (xxiii.  5,  6). 
It  is  true  that  in  the  Deuteronomic  parallels  we  sometimes 
meet  with  deviations  from  the  Yahvistic  narrative,  but  these 
are  hardly  sufficient  to  outweigh  the  minute  points  of  agreement 
which  also  occur.  They  only  prove  that  our  author  derived 
his  material  from  more  than  one  source,  his  secondary 
authority  being  sometimes  popular  tradition,  sometimes  perhaps 
his  own  creative  imagination.  But  the  case  becomes  even 
stronger  when  we  consider  the  introductory  portion  of  the  book 
(i.  i-iv.40;  by  itself.  This  is  a  free  recapitulation  of  the  account 
of  the  wanderings  contained  in  the  earlier  books,  and  was  evi- 
dently intended  as  a  convenient  connexion  between  Deutero- 
nomy proper  and  the  Yahvistic  narrative.  Let  the  reader  only 
carry  his  studies  a  little  farther,  and  see  how  a  scholar  of  the 
Deuteronomist  has  edited  Joshua,  and  he  will  not  quarrel  with 
any  one  for  asserting  that  the  Yahvistic  narrative  must  have 
been  written  first,  and  that  a  Deuteronomistic  writer  composed 
Deut.  i.~iv.  40  as  a  link  between  his  own  and  the  earlier  work. 

2.  But  these  are  far  from  being  the  only  points  in  which  the 
author  of  Deuteronomy  has  betrayed  himself.  He  is  full  of 
allusions  to  circumstances  which  did  not  exist  till  long  after 
Moses.  The  Israel  of  his  description  is  separated  from  the 
Israel  of  the  Exodus  by  a  complete  social  revolution.  The 
nomad  tribes  have  grown  into  a  settled  and  wealthy  com- 
munity (notice  the  phrase  "the  eliers  of  the  city,"  xix.  12,  &c.), 
whose  organization  needs  no  longer  to  be  constituted,  but  only 
to  be  reformed.  I  do  not  say  that  no  directions  can  be  found 
which  bear  on  their  face  the  stamp  of  a  primitive  age.  Our 
author  did  not  hesitate  to  adopt  earlier  laws,  though  he  neutra- 
lized their  possible  evil  effect  either  by  distinct  modifications  or 
by  the  context  in  which  he  placed  them.    But  the  elaborate 

•  Graf,  "Die  geschichtlicben  Bucher,"  u.s.w.,  pp.  9-X9;  comp.  Bp. 
Colenso,  "The  Pentateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua  CriticaUy  Examined/ 
▼»•  34.  35« 


'       ii 

!     I 


i 


79 


JEREMIAH. 


character  of  most  of  the  Deuteronomic  arrangements  con- 
clusively proves  the  lateness  of  their  origin.  See,  for  instance, 
the  laws  of  contracts  (chaps,  xv.,  xxiii.,  xxiv.),  of  inheritance 
(chap,  xxi.),  and,  above  all,  of  war  (chap,  xx)  ;  and  contrast  the 
last-mentioneJ  with  the  very  primitive  directions  in  Numb. 
xxxi.  25-30.  The  fact  that  in  Deut.  xx.  the  law-giver  distinctly 
contemplates  wars  of  foreign  conquest,  brings  down  the  date  of 
the  law  below  the  period  of  David.  Or  take  still  more  definite 
allusions.  The  law  regulating  the  kingship  is  proved  by  its 
contents  to  be  later  than  the  time  of  Solomon,  whose  dangerous 
tendencies  are  not  obscurely  alluded  to  (xvii.  14-20) ;  the  law 
confining  the  right  of  sacrificing  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  to  be 
later  than  the  Mosaic  age '  (even  in  the  widest  sense  of  the 
term),  later  than  the  times  of  David  and  Solomon,"  later  than 
Jeroboam,3  and  probably  later  than  Azariah  ;*  the  warnings 
against  the  lower  forms  of  prophecy  (xviii.  10-12),  to  be  not 
earlier  than  the  first  of  the  great  succession  of  prophetic 
teachers  of  a  moral  and  spiritual  religion — Amos  and  Rosea  ; 
the  prohibition  of  star-worship  (iv.  19,  xvii.  3),  to  be  not  earlier 
than  the  Assyrian  period  ;5  and  lastly,  the  law  restricting  sacri- 
fices and  festival  observances  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  (xii. 
5-27,  xvi.  1-17,  &c.)  to  be  later  certainly  than  Amos  and  Rosea,* 
later  certainly  than  Mesha's  Moabitish  inscription,'  and  later 
almost  certainly  than  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.' 

•  Exod.  XX.  24-26,  as  all  critics  (see  especially  Dillmann)  agree,  is  ad- 
dressed to  the  whole  body  of  the  Israelites,  not  to  a  single  tribe. 

'  2  Sam.  viii.  18  (see  "Variorum  Bible  "),  vi.  13,  14,  xxiv.  25  ;  z  Kings 
viii.  62,  63. 

3  I  Kings  xii.  31  (see  "Variorum  Bible").  Had  the  sacerdotal  rights 
of  the  Levites  been  generally  recognized,  Jeroboam  would  not  have 
ventured  on  promiscuous  ordinations.  *  2  Chron.  xxvi.  16-21. 

5  This  form  of  worship  being  derived  immediately  from  Assyria,  Amos 
prophesies  that  the  Israelitish  star-worshippers  shall  have  to  carry  the 
images  of  their  star-gods  (/<?  which  he  gives  Assyrian  t.ames)  beyond 
Damaiicus,  a  vague  but  significant  expression  for  Assyria  : — 'Therefore  ye 
shall  trike  up  Sakkuth  your  king,  and  Kaivdn  your  star-god ;  even  your 
images,  which  ye  have  made  unto  yourselves  "  (Amos  v.  26  ;  see  Schrader, 
and  comp.  2  Kings  xxi.  5). 

•  Amos  and  Hosea,  ♦hough  denouncing  star -worship,  say  nothing  against 
the  non-idolatrous  worship  of  Jeliovah  at  the  local  shrines. 

1  Mesha  states  that  he  took  "altars  (strictly,  altar-hearths)  of  Yahveh** 
from  the  town  of  Nebo  in  the  trans-Jordanic  country  (Moabite  Inscription, 
line  18). 

•  According  to  2  Kings  xviii.  4,  I lezekiah  abolished  the  "high  places" 


rRAUn  OR  NEEDFUL  ILLUSION? 


73 


3.  It  will  also  be  clear,  on  a  little  reflexion,  that  there  are 
ideas  expressed  in  Deeiteronomy  which  can  only  have  arisen  at 
an  advanced  stage  of  religious  development.'  I  will  not  now 
appeal  to  the  Deuteronomic  klea  of  the  exclusive  right  of 
Jehovah  to  Israel's  worship,  for  that  is  also  expressed  in  the 
Decalogue.  Nor  will  I  lay  any  stress  on  the  repeated  prohibi- 
tions of  the  use  of  *'  similitudes  "  in  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
(Deut.  iv.  12,  15-18,  &c.).  For  this  prohibition,  too.  occurs  in 
the  Decalogue.  But  there  are  several  characteristic  ideas  of 
Deuteronomy,  to  the  use  of  which  as  evidence  of  a  late  date 
no  exception  can  be  taken. 

Thus  (i.)  the  thought  of  giving  a  religious  colour  to  the 
whole  of  the  national  organization  is  the  logical  develop- 
ment of  the  idea  so  earnestly  inculcated  by  Isaiah  (iv.  3 
vi.  13,  xi.  1-9,  &c.)  of  the  "holy  people"  (seven  times  in 
Deuteronomy).  It  is  the  thought  of  one  who  was  a  states- 
man, as  well  as  an  inspired  prophet,  and  who  saw  that  in  the 
coming  struggle  for  the  national  existence  of  the  Israelites, 
their  only  hope  lay  in  the  deepening  and  concentrating  of  their 
religious  life.  Hence  those  elaborate  arrangements  which 
descend  even  to  such  minutiae  as  the  substance  of  a  man's 
clothing  (xxii.  it,  12),  but  which  are  all  set  in  a  framework  of 
rehgious  precepts  and  principles.  We  have  before  us,  in  fact, 
the  prelude  of  the  Levitical  reformation  set  on  foot  by  Ezra. 
The  author  of  Deuteronomy  and  his  friends,  with  not  inferior 
earnestness  though  with  less  rigour  than  Ezra,  attempted  the 
bold  experiment  (bold,  for  any  but  prophets  and  the  disciples 
of  prophets)  of  converting  a  nation  into  a  church,  and  an 
earthly  kingdom  into  a  theocracy.  But  the  fundamental  idea 
of  the  "holy  people"  is  Isaiah's.  It  was  that  great  prophet's 
'''unction  to  transfer  the  conception  of  holiness  from  the  physical 
lo  the  moral  sphere.    Others  no  doubt  had  laboured  in  the 

or  local  sanctuaries.  It  is  an  open  question  whether  this  strong  statement 
is  correct.  Even  Josiah,  thougli  he  insists  on  the  sanctity  of  Mount  Zion 
never  fuhninates  against  "  high  places."  FYom  2  Kings  xxiii.  13  we  gather 
that  even  very  near  Jerusalem  the  reformation  was  but  slight. 

»  Not  only  are  the  ideas  peculiar,  but  they  are  e.\pressed  in  a  phraseology 
as  peculiar — thoroughly  unlike  that  of  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
presenting  many  points  of  contact  with  Jeremiah.  Besides,  the  general 
character  of  the  style  points  equally  to  the  silver  age  of  Hebrew  literatuii; 
(comp.  Ewald,  "  History  of  Israel,"  i.  127). 


va 


74 


JEREMIAH. 


n'!:  ; 


mi 


same  direction,  but  none  was  so  "  clothed  with  the  Spirit "  fot 
the  work  as  Isaiah.  The  notion  current  among  the  Israelites 
of  their  relation  to  Jehovah  was  of  a  privilege  enjoyed  by  a 
natural,  mdefeasible  right.  Isaiah  fought  against  this  illusion. 
He  taught  that  it  was  not  enough  to  be  outwardly  a  chiJd  of 
Abraham  ;  the  enjoyment  of  the  Divine  favour  was  conditional 
on  the  performance,  not  merely  of  ceremonies,  but  of  certain 
primary  moral  acts.  The  difference  between  Isaiah  and  the 
author  of  Deuteronomy  is  simply  that  the  one  looks  for  the 
"  holy  people  "  to  an  ideal  future ;  the  other  seeks,  prematurely 
enough,  to  realize  the  conception  in  the  present. 

(ii.)  The  idea  of  limiting  the  public  worship  of  Jehovah  to  a 
single  sanctuary  (xii.  5-17,  &c.)  is  closely  connected  with  that 
of  the  "holy  people."  If  Israel  took  his  stand  on  his  religion, 
it  was  necessary  for  him  to  distinguish  it  as  sharply  as  possible 
from  that  of  his  neighbours  and  antagonists.  As  long  as 
Jehovah  was  worshipped  at  the  local  sanctuaries  called  "  high 
places,"  the  forms  of  worship  were  liable  to  become  assimilated 
to  those  of  alien,  unspiritual  religions.  The  significant  figure  of 
"  whoredom  "  for  idolatry  (Jer.  ii.  20,  &c.)  sufficiently  indicates 
the  danger  by  which  the  Israelites  of  this  period  were  threatened. 
Yet  religion  could  not  be  entirely  divested  of  material  symbols. 
Hence  even  Isaiah,  with  all  his  hatred  of  formalism,  insists 
repeatedly  on  the  sanctity  of  the  temple-mount,  though  (call  it 
inconsistency,  or  call  it  a  wise  discretion)  he  refrains  from 
fulminating  against  the  country  sanctuaries.  A  complete 
measure  of  religious  centralization  was  reserved  for  the  author 
of  Deuteronomy. 

(iii.)  Still  further  to  increase  the  popular  reverence  for  the 
temple-worship,  the  Deuteronomic  legislator  gave  a  solemn 
sanction  to  the  exclusive  claims  of  the  Levitical  priesthood.* 
From  the  Mosaic  age  onwards,  they  ministered  the  Divine 
fordh  to  the  Israelites  who  came  to  them  (comp.  Deut.  xxxiii.  9, 
Jer.  ii.  8)  ;  but  it  cannot  be  shown  that  they  alone  "  stood 
before  Jehcah  to  minister  unto  him,"  as  this  legislator  com* 
•.iii'ndod  that  they  should  do.  It  is  only  naturnl  to  suppose  that 
i!ih  important  innovation  (so  it  may  be  called,  even  though  it 
tna;;  havf  Seen  based  o  \  a  growing  custom)  belongs  tea  lata 
and  i;on*ew'rt?t  rcvolu^onary  age. 

^-  Pasi«(ges  friendly  to  ?he  Levites,  Deut.  xviii.  1-5  (comp.  xii.  la,  18,  19* 
r.v   «7,  aa   XVI.  n,  74,  /xvi.  11-13),  '^■'''v-  8,  xxxi.  9,  25,  26. 


for 

slites 
)y  a 

ision. 

|d  of 

fonal 

rtain 

the 

the 

irely 


FRAUD  OR  NEEDFUL  ILLUSION? 


75 


In  the  course  of  the  foregoing  negative  proof  I  have  been 
compelled  to  bring  forward  positive  evidence  in  favour  of  a  very 
late  date  for  Deuteronomy.  David  and  Solomon,  Mesha,  king 
of  Moab,  the  Yahvist,  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Isaiah,  must  have 
lived  prior  to  the  author  of  the  lawbook  ;  and  we  have  just 
found  reason  tr>  suppose  that  its  composition  belongs  to  a 
revolutionary  period  of  Israel's  history.  Now,  Hezekiah's  reign 
being  excluded*  (see  above),  the  reigns  of  Manasseh  and 
Josiah  remain— the  only  ones  of  which  the  Second  Book  of 
Kings  relates  any  reformation  or  revolution.  The  former  is 
the  more  plausible  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  ordinary 
reader.*  Assuming  this  to  be  the  period  of  the  composition  of 
the  book,  we  could  make  a  shrewd  guess  as  to  the  cause  of  its 
being  deposited  in  the  temple.  Manasseh,,  it  seems,  hated  the 
strict  religion  and  morality  which  Deuteronomy  was  written  to 
promote,  and  the  true-hearted  prophet  and  priest  who  composed 
the  book  could  not  venture,  we  might  reasonably  assume,  to  keep 
it  in  their  own  hands.  It  is  no  doubt  strange  that  the  book 
should  have  been  lost  sight  of  by  its  priestly  custodians.  Possibly, 
however,  the  secret  of  its  hiding-place  had  been  confided  to  but 
one  or  two,  and  the  few  who  knew  it  had  died  without  handing 
it  on.  At  any  rate,  one  might  say  that  Providence  watched 
over  the  roll,  and  caused  it  to  be  brought  forth  at  the  right 
moment.  I  do  not  myself  hold  this  view,  however,  and  only 
develop  it  here  to  assist  the  reader's  imagination.  If  the  b  ilc 
were  written  under  Manasseh,  it  is  at  leasr.  strange  that  le 
book  should  not,  either  in  its  exhortations  or  in  its  comm  ds, 
make  any  allusions  {^fxuvavra  vvvtroiaiv)  to  the  lact  that  Jehc  ah's 
central  sanctuary  had  been  invaded  by  idol;?  (2  Kings  xxi.  4, 
&c.).  Looking  at  the  lawbook  by  itself,  one  can  undt  tand 
it  better  if  written  under  Josiah.  The  hopefulnes";  i .  the 
writer,  which  penetrates  each  page  of  his  book,  was  ji  iiied  by 
the  character  of  the  new  king,  and  it  seems  reasonable  to  sup- 


*  See,  however,  Vaihinger  In  Herzog's  "  Realency^opadie,"  ed.  i,  xi 
327-8. 

*  Since  writing  the  above,  I  find  that  a  young  and  able  German  writer, 
Rudolf  Kittel,  who  began  his  career  with  a  temperate  criticism  of  Well- 
hausen's  "  Geschichte  Israels"  (now  more  fitly  styled  "  Prolegous>na  zur 
Geschichte  Israels")  adopts  Manasseh's  reign  as  the  date  of  Deuteronomy 
in  his  new  '•  Geschichte  der  Hebraer."  I  agree  with  Djllmann  that 
Josiah's  reign  is  rather  more  probable. 


■I  ■^Ui'»mt<tm\mwm 


Bi'i  ; 


U 


1 '  t 


I  ^ 


iif 


I'" 


,1' 


76 


JEREMIAH. 


pose  that  the  book  was  published  soon  after  it  was  written, 

while  its  joint-authors  were  still  alive,  because  this  helps  us  to 
account  for  the  rapid  success  of  its  ideas.  Add  to  this  the  fact 
that  the  literary  influence  of  Deuteronomy  lying  (as  it  would 
seem)  with  Jeremiah,  and  there  remains  but  little  excuse  for 
doubting  that  the  authors  of  Deuteronomy  were  among  the 
actors  in  the  great  reformation  of  King  Josiah. 

The  one  great  advantage  of  referring  the  lawbook  to  the 
reign  of  Manasseh,  is  that  it  permits  us  to  form  the  highest 
possible  moral  estimate  of  Hilkiah  and  Shaphan.  Rough 
critics  (especially  if  tinctured  with  the  old-fashioned  dogmatit 
rationalism)  are  apt  to  fly  off  from  the  one  extreme  of  Bible- 
hero-worship  to  the  other  of  Bible-hero-depreciation,  and 
accuse  at  any  rate  Hilkiah  of  complicity  in  a  forgery.  We  still, 
in  English  books  especially,  meet  with  statements  that  our  only 
choice  lies  between  the  "  good  old  view  "  of  the  Mosaic  origin 
of  Deuteronomy  and  that  of  its  purely  fictitious  character.  I 
confess  that,  in  spite  of  these  statements,  I  cannot  think  that 
the  latter  hypothesis  merits  a  long  examination.  Let  the 
following  remarks  suffice. 

I  will  admit  that  the  hypothesis  of  forgery  (advocated  by  Von 
Bohlen  and  others)  is  not  to  be  rejected  straightway  on  the 
ground  of  its  moral  repulsiveness.  M.  Alexandre,  the  editor  of 
the  Sibylline  Oracles,  has  remarked  on  the  excellent  morality  of 
their  contents  coexisting  with  the  fiction  of  their  authorship. 
The  moral  standard  of  one  age  is  not  that  of  another,  and  great 
saints  have  allowed  themselves  in  practices  which  would  now  be 
disclaimed  by  all  good  men.  Nor  yet  may  it  be  scouted  on  the 
ground  that  it  is  plainly  impossible  to  palm  off  a  modern  statute- 
book  as  ancient  upon  a  whole  nation.  Sir  Henry  Maine  has  given 
an  instance  of  such  a  successful  forgery  in  the  history  of  Eng- 
lish law  ("  Ancient  Law,"  p.  82),  and  what  has  been  done  in  one 
country  may,  the  conditions  being  not  essentially  different,  be 
effected  in  another.  But  the  hypothesis  is  in  the  highest  degree 
improbable,  because  Deut.  xviii.  contains  (as  we  have  seen)  a 
law  relative  to  the  country  Levites  which  directly  clashes  with 
the  class  interests  of  the  Zadokite  priests,  from  whom,  on  the 
hypothesis  of  forgery,  Deuteronomy  proceeds.  It  is  also 
critically  unnecessary.  O'  course,  it  is  only  the  middle  part  of 
the  book  (chaps,  v.-xxvi.)  about  which  there  can  be  any  dis- 
pute— that  part  which  in  the  opening  and  closinsj  chapters  is 


FRAUD  OR  NEEDFUL  ILLUSION  ^ 


77 


:  I] 


[ten, 
js  to 

I  fact 

)Uld 

for 
the 


referred  to  as  "  this  tdrah,^'  i.  5,  iv.  8  (conip.  v,  44),  xxvii,  3,  8, 
26,  xxviii.  58,  xxix.  28,  xxx.  10,  xxxi.  11,  12,  26,  xxxii.  46.  This 
portion  is  no  doubt  declared  to  be  Mosaic.  There  is  no  possi- 
bility of  explaining  this  away.    Listen  to  the  Book, — 

And  Moses  called  all  Israel^  and  said  unto  them,  Hear,  0 
Israel,  the  stahites  and  ordinances  which  I  speak  in  ycur  ears 
this  day.  .  .  .  (Deut,  v.  i). 

And  Moses  wrote  this  law  [tdrdh]  (Deut.  xxxi.  9). 

What  did  this  mean  to  the  mass  of  those  who,  in  Josiah's 
eighteenth  year,  heard  the  lawbook  read.''  It  is  self-evident 
that  no  human  being  could  recall  from  oblivion  the  statement 
of  fundamental  laws  which  Moses  (by  a  sudden  concentration 
of  his  intellectual  powers — for  he  was  primarily  a  man  of  action, 
and  neither  an  orator  nor  a  writer)  may  possibly  have  given  at 
the  dose  of  his  career.  It  would  be  difficult  *  to  suppose  that  the 
men  of  Judah  adopted  such  an  absurd  idea,  or  ev^n  that  they 
held  a  theory  most  reasonable  in  the  case  of  Ecc  esias  es  that 
the  author  did  but  assume  the  character  of  a  hero  ot  antiquity 
by  a  literary  fiction.'  They  were  not  subtle-minded  people,  and 
must  have  drawn  the  most  obvious  inference  from  the  facts 
presented  to  them,  viz.,  that  the  lawbook  had  been  lost  for 
centuries,  and  been  recovered  only  now  by  the  high  priest 
Hilkiah.  That  the  latter  (who  had  his  own  interpretation  of 
the  word  "  Mosaic,"  to  which  I  will  turn  presently)  permitted 
this  belief  to  exist  may  be  stigmatized  by  some  as  deceit  ;  what 
he  practised,  however,  was  not  deceit  nor  Elusion,  but  rather 
zVlusion.  Need  I  justify  the  principle  which,  unconsciously 
to  himself,  lay  beneath  his  action  ?    Novalis  may  exaggerate 

■  I  say  "difficult"  and  not  "impossible,"  for  I  remember  that  Fathers 
of  the  Church  did  believe  Ezra  to  have  rewritten  the  Law  of  Moses 
under  Divine  inspiration.  But  the  credulity  of  theologians,  when 
assisted  by  a  predisposing  motive,  is  greater  on  some  points  than  that 
of  ordinary  men.  Besides,  the  doctrine  of  verbal  inspiration  was  not  as 
yet  developed. 

■  I  do  not  in  the  text  refer  to  the  theory  of  a  legal  Jiciion,  because  I 
doubt  whether,  unless  we  use  the  pmning-knife  very  vigorously,  the  middle 
part  of  Deuteronomy  can  have  been  understood  on  this  theory  or  principle. 
I  do  not  deny  the  existence  of  legal  conventions  generally  understood  as 
such  by  educated  Israelites  (comp.  Robertson  Smith,  "  The  Old  Testament 
in  the  Jewish  Church,"  p,  387),  but  the  nucleus  of  our  Deuteronomy  seems 
CO  me  too  large  and  complex  to  be  put  on  a  level  with  isolated  laws  such  as 
Numb.  xxxi.  27. 


7« 


JEREMIAH. 


when  he  says,  *'  Error  is  the  necessary  instrument  of  truth  ; 
with  error  I  make  truth."  But  he  is  strictly  correct  in  his 
following  words,  "  All  transition  begins  with  illusion."'  Both 
historically  and  educationally  it  is  clear  that  at  certain  stages 
of  development  men  cannot  receive  the  pure  truth,  which  must 
therefore  be  enclosed  for  a  time  in  a  husk  of  harmless  error. 
The  history  of  the  prophets  shows  us  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
Providence  employed  much  illusion  in  training  its  instruments. 
Jeremiah  him^>eif  at  length  became  aware  of  this  in  his  own 
case,  and  not  without  a  mon.entary  disappointment  at  the 
discovery  "  Thou  hast  deceived  me,  Jehovah,"  he  ex- 
claims, ''  and  I  was  deceived  "  (or,  •'  enticed " ;  Jer.  xx.  7, 
R.V.) ;  and  the  New  Testament  suggests  the  view  that,  when 
the  older  writers  speak  of  the  rewards  of  Israel's  obedience, 
they  sometimes  make  a  large  use  of  illusion : — For  if  Joshua 
had  given  them  rest,  he  (David)  would  not  have  spoken  after- 
ward of  another  day.  There  remaineth  therefore  a  sabbath 
rest  for  the  people  of  God  (Heb.  iv.  8,  9,  R.V.).  The  illusion 
respecting  the  authorship  of  Deuteronomy  lasted  for  centuries, 
and  produced,  as  we  may  reverently  suppose,  no  injurious  effect 
upon  L<.  Church.  But  in  modern  times,  and  especially  now, 
when  th<:  reign  of  law  is  recognized  not  less  by  the  defenders 
than  by  the  opponents  of  theology,  to  ask  men  to  believe  that 
Deuteronomy  was  written  by  Moses,  or  that  its  substance  was 
spoken  though  not  written  by  Moses  and  supematurally  com- 
municated to  Hilkiah,  would  be  to  impose  a  burden  on  the 
Church  which  it  is  not  able  to  bear,  and  to  justify  the  prejudice 
against  the  Church's  Biblical  scholars  which  finds  frequent 
utterance  in  the  secular  press. 

But  in  what  sense  did  Hilkiah  himself  call  "  the  book  of 
tdr&h^^  (for  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  14  substantially  expresses  his  mean* 
ing)  *'  Mosaic  "  ?  He  means  partly  that  the  Deuteronomist 
absorbed  older  laws  into  his  code  (the  full  evidence  for  which 
must  be  sought  in  Dillmann's  great  critical  and  exegetical  work); 
partly  and  more  especially  that  this  keen-sighted  man  wrote  as 
Moses  would  have  written,  had  he  been  recalled  to  life  for  this 
purpose.  For  instance  (i),  Moses,  as  the  Deuteronomist  firmly 
believed,  maintained  the  claims  of  Jehovah  to  an  exclusive 
worship.    Hence,  even  if  Moses  in  his  own  very  early  days 

«  "Hymns  and  Thoughts  on  Religion  by  Novalis,"  translated   and 
•dited  by  W.  Hastie  (1888),  p.  90. 


P' 
K 

W 

tl 
tl 
t 


I 


FRAUD  OR  NEEDFUL  ILLUSION  ? 


79 


his 
bth 
Hges 
lust 

[ror. 

Fact, 

|nts. 
)wn 

I  the 
ex- 


permitted  or  even  perhaps  encouraged  local  sanctuaries  (Exod. 
XX.  24,  comp.  xxii.  30),  it  was  clear  to  the  Deuteronomist  that, 
when  they  had  ceased  to  be  useful,  Moses  would  have  abolished 
them.  Therefore  he,  '•  sitting  in  the  seat  of  Moses,"  did  abolish 
them.  (2)  In  Deut.  v.  9  the  Deuteronomist  reverently  reproduced 
the  statement  of  the  Decalogue  that  God  "  visits  the  iniquity  of 
the  fathers  upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  genera- 
tion," a  statement  true  to  the  experience  of  an  earlier  age,  and 
yet,  in  his  faithfulness  to  the  later  leadings  of  the  Divine  Spirit, 
he  frankly  declared  (as  he  thought  that  Moses  in  his  place  would 
have  declared)  in  vii.  9,  10,  that  while  mercy  is  transmitted, 
wrath  is  fully  worked  out  on  those  who  have  incurred  it.  Comp. 
Deut.  xxiv  16,  the  doctrine  of  which  encountered  extreme  oppo- 
sition in  the  post-Josian  period  (see  Jer.  xxxi.  29, 20 ;  Ezek.  xviii. 
2-4),  many  Jews  being  still  incapable  of  appreciating  a  truth 
which  the  *'  good  old  view"  absurdly  supposes  to  have  been  pro- 
pounded at  the  Exodus.  (3)  In  Exod.  xxi.  7  (a  passage  belonging 
to  the  greater  "  Book  of  Covenant,"  and  doubtless  regarded  by 
the  Deuteronomist  as  Mosaic)  it  is  enacted  that  a  Hebrew 
bondwoman  shall  not  be  set  free  at  the  end  of  seven  years  like 
a  bondman ;  but  in  Deut.  xv.  12-18  the  law  is  made  uniform  for 
both  sexes.  (4)  In  Exod.  xxii.  30,  firstlings  are  to  be  offered  to 
God  on  the  eighth  day ;  but  in  Deut.  xii.  17,  18,  xv.  19,  20,  they 
are  to  be  eaten  at  the  sanctuary  at  the  yearly  festivals.^  (5)  In 
Exod.  xxii.  31,  carrion  is  to  be  cast  to  the  dogs  ;  but  in  Deut. 
xiv.  21,  social  relations  having  become  more  developed,  the 
"  sojourner  "  {ger—iuroiKoa)  is  allowed  to  eat  it.  At  other  times 
the  author  of  Deuteronomy  simply  gives  a  further  development 
to  an  ancient  law.  Thus  the  law  of  usury  in  Exod.  xxii.  24  recurs 
in  Deut.  xxiii.  19,  20,  with  a  permission  to  take  usury  from  a 
stranger  ;  and  the  directions  as  to  taking  pledges  in  Exod.  xxii. 
26,  27,  recur  in  Deut.  xxiv.  10-13,  with  the  addition  that  the 
choice  of  the  pledge  is  to  be  left  to  the  giver  of  the  pledge. 
Thus  the  law  on  the  punishment  of  death  for  the  renegade, 
which  in  Exod.  xxii.  19  receives  the  most  concise  expression 
possible,  is  expanded  in  Deut.  xvii  2-8  into  the  description  of 
a  complete  judicial  procedure.    Thus,  too,  the  law  of  the  sab- 

«  Comp.  Robertson  Smith,  "Additional  Answer  to  the  Libel"  (1878), 
pp.  17,  18,  55  ;  and  especially  the  full  comparison  of  the  laws  in  Deutero- 
nomy and  in  the  "  Book  of  Covenant "  in  Graf,  ' '  Die  geschichtlicber. 
BUcher,"  pp.  ao-24. 


m 


8o 


JEREMIAH. 


batical  year  in  Exod.  xxiii.  lo,  ii  is  condensed  into  as  short  a 
space  as  possible  in  Deut.  xv.  i,  in  order  to  throw  into  bolder 
relief  an  independent  ordinance  on  the  mercy  to  be  shown  to 
the  debtor  during  this  year.'  I  might,  in  fact,  far  exceed  my 
available  space  in  showing  how  largely  older  collections  of 
laws  have  been  used. — To  sum  up  briefly  :  Ihe  object  of 
the  Deuteronomist  was  to  keep  up  the  historic  continuity  of 
the  "  Mosaic "  school  of  legalists — the  orthodox  school,  one 
may  call  it,  in  opposition  to  those  *'  lying  pens  "  of  which 
Jeremiah  speaks  (Jer.  viii.  8).  The  object  of  Hilkiah  was  to 
terminate  the  painful  hesitancy  of  the  believers  in  a  spiritual 
religion  by  producing  the  joint  work  of  some  well-trained  priest 
and  prophet  as  the  only  suitable  and  divinely  appointed  law 
of  the  state.  To  abolish  polytheism  and  the  dangerous  local 
shrines  a  new  prophecy  and  a  new  lawbook,  of  a  more  effi- 
cacious character  than  any  which  had  yet  been  seen,  were 
clearly  necessary.  These  were  provided  in  the  original  Book 
of  Deuteronomy. 

Who  was  the  author,  or  rather,  who  were  the  authors,  of  the 
original  lawbook  ?  The  question  reveals,  first  of  all,  a  want  of 
comprehension  of  the  ethos  of  the  inspired  writers.  No  trace 
can  one  find  in  them  of  the  least  regard  for  personal  distinction ; 
indeed,  the  Oriental  mind  in  general  is  so  convinced  of  the 
littleness  of  the  individual,  that  even  outside  the  "  household  of 
saints  "  personal  fame  is  an  object  of  trifling  importance.  Let  us 
take  a  lesson  from  Josiah,  whose  anxiety  was  not  as  to  the  original 
author  of  the  lawbook,  but  as  to  its  agreeableness  to  the  will  of 
God.  It  argues,  next,  a  defective  sense  of  what  it  really  con- 
cerns us  to  know.  What  does  it  matter  whether  the  prophet 
of  Israel's  Restoration  was,  or  was  not,  literally  a  "  second 
Isaiah  "  ?  or  whether  the  author  of  the  prophecy  (or  of  part 
of  the  prophecy)  attached  to  Zech.  i.-viii.  was,  or  was  not,  like 
his  predecessor  named  Zechariah  ?  Whether  Hilkiah  was  or 
was  not  a  joint-author  of  Deuteronomy  it  a  point  which  has 
much  exercised  some  critics.  No  doubt  "  Moses  "  in  Deut. 
xxxi.  26'  directs  the  Levites  to  take  this  lawbook  and  put  it 
by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant ;  this  may  seem  to  sup- 

»  Kleinert,  "Das  Deutcronomium  und  der  Deuteronomiker "  (187a), 
pp,  49,  so. 

*  ¥tom  the  point  of  view  of  critical  analysis,  Deut.  xxxi.  36  does  not 
belong  to  the  book  read  by  Josiah  (see  further  on). 


I  4 


FRAUD  OR  NEEDFUL  ILLUSION  f 


tt 


port  the  hypothesis  of  forgery.  And  yet  can  we  suppose  that 
Hilkiah  was  clever  enough  to  justify  his  (supposed)  forgery  in  so 
natural  a  way  ?  Was  the  art  of  forgery  already  so  far  advanced  ? 
It  would  be  interesting  biographically  could  we  ascertain 
that  Jeremiah  was  the  prophet  who  (as  it  seems)  assisted 
the  unknown  priest  in  the  composition  of  the  book.  Could  it 
further  be  shown  that  the  high  priest  Hilkiah  was  Jeremiah's 
father,  one  would  be  strongly  tempted  tj  accept  Hitzig's  view 
that  the  "  finder  "  of  th(  lawbook  was  also  its  joint-author. 
But  I  doubt  whether  the  knowledge  of  these  facts  would  tlMow 
any  fresh  light  on  the  prophet's  character.  As  a  matter  of  tact, 
the  internal  evidence  supplied  by  the  Book  of  Jeremiah  is 
strongly  opposed  to  his  having  been  a  Deuteronomist.  It  is 
true  that  the  Book  is  fuU  of  phraseological  points  of  contact  with 
Deuteronomy.  That  great  scholar  Zunz  (whom  George  Eliot 
has  made  known  to  many  unlearned  reau<.rs)  has  pointed  out 
sixty-six  passages  of  Deuteronomy,  echoes  of  which  occur,  as 
it  seems,  in  eighty-six  passages  of  Jeremiah.'  W>  must  re- 
member, however,  (i)  that  Jeremiah  is  imitative  ;  (2)  that  not 
all  these  passages  are  undoubtedly  Deutoronomic  and  Jeremian 
respectively;"  (3)  that  the  influence  of  Deuteronomy  can  be 
traced  in  many  pages  of  tlie  Old  Testament,  which  there  is  no 
ground  whatever  for  assigning  to  the  Deuteronomist ;  and 
(4)  that  while  the  mood  of  Jeremiah  alternates  between 
despondency  and  indignation,  the  Deuteronomist's  is  that  of 
majestic  calm  and  trust.   There  are    Iso  remarkable  differences 

*  "  Gesammelte  Schriften,"  i.  219-222.  Bishop  Colenso's  list  in  the 
Appendix  to  Part  vii.  of  his  work  on  the  Pentateuch  includes  loo  much. 
Kleinert's  excursus  on  liie  phraseology  and  vocabulary  f  the  Deuterono- 
mist is  more  truly  critical.  In  his  sixth  dissertation  he  sums  up  the  lin- 
guistic differences  of  tlu;  two  books.  Konig's  hst  in  his  "  Alttestamentliche 
Studien,"  Heftii.  \\^2,9)'  PP-  23-98,  requires  sifting. 

■  In  the  original  Book  of  ')eu.ironomy  (if  the  whole  of  chaps,  v.-xxvi. 
may  b«»  regarded  as  such)  tin-re  occur  twenty-four  passages  which  are 
echoed  in  prophecies  of  undoubted  Jru-mian  origin.  Taking  these  latter 
together,  there  are  (according  to  Zunz's  list)  only  seven  chapters  or  section! 
(i.,  iv.,  X.  17-25,  xviii.,  xxxi.,  xlv.,  xlvii.)  which  do  not  present  phraseolo- 
jical  points  of  contact  with  our  Book  of  Deuterono.ny.  These  calculations 
r*i  give  the  reader  some  idea  of  the  state  of  the  case.  To  be  strictly 
vccurate  several  tables  would  be  necessary.  No  "echo"  of  Deuteronomy 
fi  detected  by  Zunz  in  Jer.  iv.  and  xxxi.  But  does  not  the  prophet  allude 
^though  in  a  perfectly  free  manner)  to  Deut.  x.  16,  xxx.  6  in  Jer.  jv.  4. 
aud  to  Deut.  xxvi.  19,  xxviii.  i  in  Jer.  xxxi.  7? 

7 


N 


f'.vl 


li 


^. 


.J^.  ""-^ 


^J^  w  „o. 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


1.0 


I.I 


■  50     "^™ 

1.2 


m^ 


2.2 


^  ills  ilM 


» 


c^:5 


*^ 


>  s 


HiotDgraphic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  ST^:^£T 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


V 


•^ 


\\ 


tv 


6^ 


6^ 


8a 


JEREMIAH. 


both  in  the  choice  of  words  and  expressions,  and  in  the  lin 
guistic  type  of  the  two  books.  The  Deuteronomic  exhorta- 
tion to  "love  God,"  and  the  Deuteronomic  titles  of  God  and 
of  Israel  respectively,  "a  consuming  fire,"  "  a  jealous,  a  merciful, 
a  faithful,  a  terrible  God,"  "  a  special  people,"  **  a  holy  people," 
"  thine  inheritance,"  are  wanting  m  Jeremiah ;  on  the  other  hand, 
there  is  nothing  in  Deuteronomy  corresponding  to  those  descrip- 
tions of  God's  attributes  in  the  style  of  the  Psalms  in  which 
Jeremiah  takes  so  much  delight,  e.g ,  "  O  Jehovah,  my  strength, 
and  my  fortress,  and  my  refuge,"  Jer.  xvi.  19,  cf  ix.  23,  x.  7,  10, 
xi,  20.  Still  more  remarkable,  perhaps,  are  the  linguistic 
phenomena.  Aramaism  abounds  in  Jeremiah  ;  it  is  hardly 
to  be  traced  in  Deuteronomy.  Any  student  approaching 
the  subject  with  a  fresh  mind  will,  I  think,  agree  with  me 
on  the  general  superiority  of  the  style  of  the  Deuteronomist. 

Consider  this  point,  too — that,  however  akm  Jeremiah's  con- 
ception of  religion  may  be  to  that  of  the  Deuteronomist,  he 
shows  no  sign  of  interest  in  the  cultus  or  of  any  special  regard 
for  the  Levitical  priesthood.  He  denies  that  the  regulation  of 
sacrifices  formed  any  part  of  the  Sinaitic  law  (Jer  vii.  22),  and 
continually  denounces  the  conduct  of  the  priests  (Jer.  i.  18, 
ii.  8-26,  iv.  9,  V.  31,  viii.  1,  xiii.  13,  xxxii.  32),  The  number 
and  vehemence  of  the  passages  referred  to  are  not  outweighed 
by  such  sporadic  instances  of  a  milder  view  as  xvii.  26,  xxxi.  14, 
xxxiii.  II,  and  17-24.  Indeed,  this  last  passage  (xxxiii.  17-24) 
is  very  possibly  not  Jeremiah's  work.  The  whose  section  in 
which  it  occurs  {w.  14-26)  is  omitted  in  the  Septuagint.  I  may 
now  safely  leave  this  question.  It  was  worth  discussing,  because 
the  reader  may  now  see  less  arbitrariness  in  my  future  treatment 
of  Jeremiah's  course  as  a  preacher. 

It  only  remains  to  explain  the  phrase  "  the  original  Book  of 
Deuteronomy."  We  can  scarcely  claim  to  restore  with  precision 
the  very  book  which  made  such  an  impression  on  Josiah.  It  is 
undoubtedly  contained  in  the  middle  part  of  Deuteronomy ;  the 
only  question  is  whether  the  whole  of  this  part  belongs  to  the 
original  book.  I  think  that,  allowing  for  some  few  later  inser- 
tions' and  glosses,  we  may  regard  chaps,  v.-xxvi.  as  the  original 

■  As  such  Dillmann  regards  ix.  as-x.  xx,  and  xi.  39-33.  In  my  critical 
analysis  I  mainly  follow  Kuenen's  new  edition  of  Vol.  i.  of  his  "Ond^r- 
xock,"  translated  as  a  separate  work  by  Mr.  Wicksteed  (1886) ;  compara 
(with  this  Wellhausen's  reprinted  in  his  **  Skizzen  und  Vorarbeiten,"  Heft  iL 
1885),  and  Horst'sin  **  Revue  de  I'bistoire  des  religions,"  1888,  p.  x,  &o. 


FRAUD  OR  NEEDFUL  ILLUSION? 


S3 


"book  of  (Divine)  instruction."    It  is  probable  that  i.  i-iv.  44, 
and  iv.  45-49  are  two  distinct  introductions,  composed  inde- 
pendently by  two  different  writers,  close  students  of  the  original 
"  book  of  tdrclh  "  in  that  which  is  most  distinctive  of  it,  the 
former  of  whom  may  perhaps  have  had  some  really  Deutero- 
nomic  material  to  work  upon.    The  book  itself  begins  with  the 
"  Ten    Words "   (not,  Commandments),  of  the  first  of  which 
(Deut.  V.  6,  7)  chaps,  vi.  4-xiii.  18,  and,  in  a  less  strict  sense, 
chaps,  xiv.  l-xvi.  17,  may  be  considered  as  an  exposition.    The 
author  then  "  passes  (though  not  without  re-crossing  the  line 
occasionally)  from  that  which  concerns  religion  in  the  narrower 
sense  of  the  word  to  the  outward  realm  and  its  arrangement " 
(xvi.  i8-xxvi.  15).     And  here  comes  in  that  appeal,  couched  in 
the  liveliest  prophetic  style,  to  the  instinct  of  self-preservation, 
which  seems  to  have  made  so  deep  an  impression  on  Josiah  and 
his  contemporaries : — it  was  for  them  indeed  that  it  was  specially 
written.    As  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  now  stands,  this  appeal 
is  interrupted  at  the  very  outset  (as  any  one  may  see  by  reading 
xxvi.  16-19,  xxvii.  9,  10,  and  xxviii.  i,  &c.  consecutively)  by 
directions  (not  by  the  Deuteronomist)  about  some  great  stones 
or  ffrqXm  on  which  "the  words  of  this  tdr&h^'  were  at  a  later 
time  to  be  inscribed.     They  are  further  interrupted  by  certain 
formulae  of  benediction  and  malediction  to  be  recited  in  the  ears 
of  the  people  on  mounts  Gerizim  and  Ebal  respectively.     "  In- 
terrupted "  may  seem  to  imply  blame  ;  but  it  is  not  the  passage 
itself,  which  in  the  light  of  travel  is  one  of  the  most  striking  in 
the  Bible,  but  its  unfortunate  position  which  one  criticises. 
Chaps,  xxvii.  9,  10  and  xxviii.  form  the  true  conclusion  of  the 
original  Deuteronomy;  to  which,  as  an  epilogue,  the  writer  added 
xxxi.  9-13,  containing  the  directions  of  Moses  on  the  writing  of 
the  orally-delivered  tdrih^  on  its  safe  custody,  and  on  its  public 
recitation  every  seven  years.'  Chaps,  xxix.,  xxx.  are  by  a  student 
of  the  Deuteronomist,  who  takes  for  granted  the  fulfilment  of 
the  curse  (comp.  Lev.  xxvi.  44),  and  makes  it  the  point  of  de- 
parture for  his  hopes  of  Israel's  conversion  and  prosperity  in  the 
future.     Possibly  he  had  Deuteronomic  material  to  work  upon  ; 
this  point  cannot  be  dogmatized  upon.     But  at  any  rate  he  was 
a  noble  writer;  the  holy  affectionateness  of  Moses,  as  he  it 

■  How  clearly  this  Is  an  imaginary  Mosaic  word.    Comp.  Deut.  zrli.  18, 
where  eveiy  king  is  directed  to  wriit  him  %  copy  of  this  law  (tirAh)  in  a 


\\\ 


:l 


S4 


JEREMIAH. 


here  represented,  is  most  affecting.  The  Song  of  Moses  (xxxii. 
1-43),  together  with  xxxi.  14-23  and  xxxii.  44,  not  improbably 
once  belonged  to  a  different  work  on  the  life  of  Moses.  Chaps. 
xxxi.  24-30  and  xxxii.  45-47,  which  are  in  the  Deuteronomic 
manner,  may  have  been  inserted  by  a  writer  of  the  school  of  the 
Deuteronomist  when  he  fitted  the  Song  and  the  accompanying 
passages  into  their  present  place.  The  Song  is  a  fine  work  of 
the  best  type  of  prophetic  religion,  and  has  many  points  with 
Jeremiah.  The  writer  of  the  book  from  which  it  was  taken 
thought  it  worthy  to  be  ascribed  to  Moses.  There  are  linguistic 
affinities  between  it  and  the  ninetieth  psalm  to  which  early 
Jewish  students  gave  the  same  origin.  The  collection  of 
rhythmical  sayings  on  the  tribes  in  chap,  xxxiii.  is  certainly 
an  early  work,'  and  of  great  historical  interest.'  But  neither  this 
nor  the  few  remaining  passages  of  the  book  need  detain  us  now. 
Let  me  only  add,  that,  in  spite  of  the  critical  dissection  of  Deu- 
teronomy which  in  honesty  I  have  been  obliged  to  give,  I  can 
enjoy  the  book  as  a  whole  as  much  as  any  one,  and  can  admire 
the  skill  with  which  the  different  parts  have  been  put  together. 
It  is  a  fine  imaginative  account  of  the  latter  days  of  Moses,  and  I 
glow  with  pleasure  as  I  read  the  concluding  words,  There  hath 
not  arisen  a  prophet  since  in  Israel  like  unto  Moses  (Deut. 
xxiv.  10).  Yes,  truly ;  for  in  this  Moses  I  detect  the  germ  of 
Jeremiah—the  forerunner  of  Christ. 


Note  on  the  "  Finding"  op  the  Lawbook  in  the  Templb. 

It  would  perhaps  have  startled  the  reader,  if,  in  the  preceding  note,  I  had 
mentioned  the  statement  of  Hilkiah  in  2  Kings  xxii.  8  as  due  to  the  imitation 
of  an  Egyptian  custom,  and  urged  that  this  created  a  presumption  in  favoiur 
of  the  view  that  the  philo-Egyptiaa  circle  from  which  this  statement  pro- 
ceeded was  also  the  circle  within  which  the  original  Deuteronomy  was  com- 
posed. And  yet  there  would  have  been  some  plausibility  in  this.  It  was  a 
•uggestion  of  M.  Maspero's  in  the  "  Revue  critique  "  (I  think,  in  1878)  which 
first  drew  my  attention  to  the  subject,  and  it  has  often  struck  me,  as  from 
an  Egyptological  point  of  view,  a  not  unreasonable  one.  Every  year,  in 
fact,  reveals  fresh  points  of  contact  between  the  culture  of  Egypt  and  that 
of  the  neighbouring  countries,  and  it  requires  a  firm  hold  on  the  peculiarity 
of  Hebraism  not  to  exaggerate  the  rdle  of  teacher  which  in  many  respects 


«  As  early,  certainly,  as  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  II.,  the  "saviour  "  given  to 
Israel  (a  Kings  xiii.  5);  see  Graf's  very  cogent  argument,  "Der  Segen 
Mose't,"  p.  8z. 


FRAUD  OR  N£EDFUL  ILLUSION? 


«5 


belongs  to  the  people  of  the  Nile-valley.  The  facts  on  whic^  M.  Maspero's 
suggestion  is  based  are  these  :  It  was  a  common  practice  of  Egyptian 
scribes  to  insert  in  their  transcripts  of  great  religious  or  scientific  works  a 
statement  that  the  writing  in  question  had  been  **  found  "  in  a  temple.  For 
example,  chap.  Ixiv.  of  the  "Book  of  the  Dead"  (an  authority  for  some 
important  religious  doctrines)  was  declared  in  certain  documents  to  have 
been  found  by  an  Egyptian  prince,  in  the  reign  of  Mencheres,  beneath  the 
feet  of  the  god  Thoth.'  Again,  a  chapter  in  the  medical  papyrus  preserved 
in  the  British  Museum  bears  the  following  rubric:  "This  cure  was  dis- 
covered at  night  by  the  hand  of  a  minister  of  the  temple  of  the  goddess  who 
happened  to  go  into  the  Hall  in  the  temple  of  the  city  of  Tebmut  in  the 
secret  places  of  that  goddess.  The  land  at  the  time  was  in  darkness,  but 
the  moon  shone  on  that  book  all  over  it.  It  was  brought  as  a  valuable 
treasure  to  His  Majesty  King  Kheops."  »  And  one  of  the  medical  treatises 
in  the  Berlin  papyrus  edited  by  Brugsch  "  was  found,  in  ancient  writing,  in 
a  coffer  of  books  at  the  feet  of  the  god  Anup  of  Sekhem,  in  the  days  of  the 
holiness  of  the  king  of  the  two  Egypts,  the  Veracious."  3  Now  it  is  too 
much  to  believe  that  the  priests  and  learned  men  of  Egypt  were  so  ignorant 
of  their  own  literature  as  to  discover  these  important  works  by  a  pure  acci- 
dent. It  IS  much  more  probable  that  it  was  a  conventional  fiction  of  the 
priestly  class  to  say  that  a  book  had  been  "  found  "  in  a  temple,  when  it 
was  wished  to  affirm  and  inculcate  its  sacred  and  authoritative  character 
with  special  emphasis.  May  there  not  then  (considering  the  other  iraces  of 
an  acquaintance  with  Egypt  in  the  book)  be  an  imitation  of  this  custom 
when  Deut.  xxxi.  26  makes  ' '  Moses  "  say.  Take  this  book  of  tordh,  and  put  it 
by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant}  The  position  assigned  to  the  law- 
book beside  the  ark  (in  a  box  of  some  kind,  we  must  suppose)  corresponds 
to  that  of  the  "  coffer  of  books  at  the  feet  of  (the  Egyptian  god)  Anup." 
Deuteronomy  does  not  indeed  bear  the  title  ' '  found  in  a  coffer  beside  the 
ark"  ;  but  Hilkiah  in  the  narrative  of  2  Kings  says  that  he  found  the  book 
in  the  temple.  Is  it  not  possible  that  the  book  was— not  lost  by  accident, 
nor  yet  placed  in  the  sanctuary  with  the  intention  to  deceive— but  simply 
taken  to  the  temple  and  formally  placed  there  as  authoritative  Scripture, 
and  then  communicated  to  Josiah  with  the  view  of  its  promulgation  ?  My 
answer  is  that  the  lawbook  as  known  to  Hilkiah  did  not  (as  we  have  seen) 
contain  Deut.  xxxi.  24-30 ;  that  Hilkiah  represents  a  party  opposed  to 
foreign  influences  (comp.  Jer.  ii.  18)  ;  and  that  the  authors  of  none  of  the 
other  religious  classics  of  Israel  (however  Egyptian  their  colouring,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Joseph-story)  imitate  this  custom  of  the  Egyptian  literati. 
It  is  only  in  Phoenician  literature  than  we  can  perhaps  find  a  parallel  to 
it  ;  Philo  of  Byblus  (second  cent,  a.d.)  asserts  that  the  Phoenician  history 
of  Sanchoniathon  had  been  concealed  and  brought  back  to  light  by  himself. 


«  Brugsch,  "Geschichte  iEgyptens,"  ed.  i,  p.  84;  Maspero,  •' Histoire 
ancienne  de  I'Orient,"  cd.  i,  p.  73. 
»  Birch,  "  Egyptische  Zeitschrift "  (1871)  p.  63. 
a  Brugsch,  as  above,  p.  60  ;  Maspero,  as  above,  p.  57. 


!  >■ 


j  'I. 


86 


JEREMIAH. 


Note  on  the  Allusions  to  Egtpt  in  Dbuteronomt. 

One  of  the  principal  arguments  for  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  Deuteronomy 
is  based  on  its  allusions  to  Egypt  and  to  Egyptian  customs,  combined  with 
the  absence  of  allusions  to  Assyria.  Dr.  Bissell,  one  of  those  young 
American  scholars  from  whom  so  much  may  be  hoped,  goes  so  far  as  to 
represent  this  as  fatal  to  the  theory  of  the  late  origin  of  the  lawbook.*  Such 
allusions  to  Egypt  doubtless  exist,  though  the  list  requires  sifting.  Among 
the  best  attested  are  the  references  to  the  ox  treading  out  the  com  un- 
muzzled (Deut.  XXV.  4)  ;  cf.  Wilkinson,  "Ancient  Egyptians,"  ii.46  ;  and  to 
the  practice  of  irrigating  the  soil  "  with  the  foot "  (Deut.  xi.  lo),  i.e.,  in  Mr. 
Espin's  words,  "  by  means  of  tread-wheels  working  sets  of  pumps,  and  by 
means  of  artificial  channels  connected  with  reservoirs,  and  opened,  turned, 
or  closed  with  the  feet."  The  frequent  references  to  the  servitude  of  the 
Israelites  in  Egypt  (Deut.  v.  15,  vi.  21,  &c.)  are  also  remarkable.  Wa 
might  have  expected  that  the  writer  would  show  a  horror  of  the  Egyptians, 
but  no  ;  he  represents  Moses  as  deprecating  such  a  feeling,  and  permitting 
an  Egyptian  to  be  admitted  to  religious  privileges  in  the  third  generation 
(Deut.  xxiii.  7,  8).  Lastly,  I  must  mention  a  very  singular  passage  in  the 
law  for  the  king  (Deut.  xvii.  14-20) :  "  But  he  shall  not  multiply  horjes  to 
himself,  nor  cause  the  people  to  return  to  Egypt,  to  the  end  that  he  should 
multiply  horses  :  forasmuch  as  Yahveh  hath  said  unto  you.  Ye  shall  hence- 
forth return  no  more  that  way  "  (v.  16).  No  thoroughly  satisfactory  expla- 
nation of  this  prohibition  has,  perhaps,  yet  been  given.  We  may,  hpwever, 
at  least,  infer  from  it  that  in  the  time  of  the  writer  an  attachment  to  Egypt 
prevailed  among  the  highest  classes  of  the  Israelites.  Possibly  we  may 
illustrate  this  by  the  name  of  Josiah's  father — Amon,  which  is  identical  with 
that  of  the  Egyptian  Sun-god  (cf.  No-Amon,  No  of  Amon,  or  rather  Amen, 
the  name  of  the  Egyptian  Thebes  in  Nahum  iii.  8).  But  at  any  rate  there 
is  no  necessity  from  these  Egyptian  allusions  to  argue  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship of  Deuteronomy.  In  fact,  the  communication  between  Palestine  and 
Egypt  was  so  easy,  that  the  wonder  is,  not  that  there  should  be  some  allu- 
sions to  Egypt  in  the  Old  Testament,  or  in  any  book  of  it,  but  rather  that 
there  should  be  so  few.  Allusions  to  Assyria  were  of  course  not  to  be  ex- 
pected in  a  summary  of  "  Mosaic  "  laws  and  discourses.  I  do  not  venture 
to  assume  that  the  form  of  the  literary  fiction  in  Deuteronomy  is  borrowed 
ftom  Egypt,  though  the  assumption  would  have  some  plausibility.  It  would 
of  course  cut  away  the  ground  for  the  theory  of  Mosaic  authorship. 


|i 


■  iiji,,  Penuteuch :  iu  Origin  and  Structure  "  (1885),  p.  378, 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

•*HIS  RHMEMBRANCE  IS  LIKE  MUSIC"  (ECCLUS.  XLIX.   I). 

David's  "last  words"  fulfilled  in  Josiah — His  thirteen  golden  years  after 
the  great  covenant— Jeremiah's  comparative  happiness — His  friends 
among  the  wise  men— Pharaoh  Neco  profits  by  the  weakness  of  Assyria 
— Josiah's  defeat  at  Megiddo  ;  his  death — The  national  mourning— 
The  tragedy  of  his  life,  and  of  Israel's  history. 


"  And  these  are  David's  last  words : 

David,  son  of  Jesse,  saith, 
The  man  whom  God  exalted  saith. 
The  anointed  of  the  God  of  Jacob, 
And  the  darling  of  the  songs  of 

Israel ; 
Jehovah's  spirit  spake  by  me, 
And  bis  word  was  on  my  tongue  ; 


The  God  of  Israel  said, 
To  me  the  Rock  of  Israel  spake : 
Who  ruleth  justly  over  men, 
Who  ruleth  in  the  fear  of  God, 
Is  like  the  morning  light  at  sunrise, 
A  morning  without  rain. 
Through   sunshine,    tr.rough  rain, 

grass  springeth  from  the  earth." 
(2  San.  xxiii.  1-4.) 


These  are  the  words  dramatically  put  into  the  mouth  of 
David  by  one  of  those  nameless  writers  who  flourished  in 
the  period  of  the  greater  prophets — themselves  filled  to  over- 
flowing with  the  spirit  of  prophetic  religion.  Just  as  several 
great  inspired  prose-writers  and  poets  busied  themselves  in 
the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  (see  end  of  Chapter  VII.)  with 
reprodi'cing  what  must  have  been  the  last  words  of  Moses,  or 
what  would  have  been  his  last  words  if  he  had  lived  in  their  own 
time,  so  several  great  inspired  poets  endeavoured,  so  to  speak, 
to  think  themselves  back  into  the  soul  of  David,  and  complete 
the  scanty  number  of  the  songs  of  the  founder  of  psalmody. 
One  of  these  poets  is  the  author  of  the  eighteenth  psalm ; 
another  composed  that  beautiful  poem  the  first  part  of  which  is 
the  motto  of  this   chapter.    This  latter  writer  may  well  have 


88 


JEREMIAH. 


lived  in  the  time  of  Hezekiah  or  Josiah,'  and  the  second  part  of 
his  poem  may  reflect  the  vigorous  measures  of  one  or  the  other 
of  these  great  reformers.  But  whichever  king  suggested  this 
idealization  of  his  remote  ancestor,  it  is  in  Josiah  alone  that  the 
opening  words  of  the  poem  are  fully  realized.  Of  him,  more 
than  of  any  other  king,  may  it  be  said  that  he  was  the  darling 
both  of  Jehovah  and  of  Israel ;  and  the  words  of  the  poem  do  but 
express  in  ornate  language  the  idea  of  Jeremiah's  noble  epitaph 
(as  I  have  called  it)  on  his  friend :  Did  not  thy  father  eat  and 
drink,  and  do  judgment  and  justice,  and  then  it  was  well  with 
him  t  He  judged  the  cause  of  the  poor  and  needy  s  then  it  was 
well  with  him  J  was  not  this  to  know  me,  saith  Jehovah  t  (Jer. 
xxii.  15,  16). 

For  thirteen  years  after  the  publication  of  the  first  Scripture^ 
Josiah  continued  to  occupy  the  throne  of  David,  of  whose  ideal 
he  seemed  the  living  embodiment.  David  fell  far  short  of  his 
ideal,  because  he  had  no  Scripture  as  the  compass  of  his  life ; 
whereas  the  mingled  sentiments  of  fear,  love,  and  hopet 
awakened  in  Josiah  by  the  reading  of  Deuteronomy,  could  at 
any  time  be  kindled  again  to  a  white  heat  by  meditation  upon 
that  inspired  volume.  The  words.  Then  said  I,  Lo,  I  am  comej 
in  the  roll  of  the  book  is  my  duty  written  j  my  delight,  0  my 
God,  is  to  do  thy  will  j  yea,  thy  law  {forah)  is  within  my 
heart  (Psa.  xl.  7,  8),  even  if  written  later,  must  represent  the 
state  of  mind  of  the  good  Josiah.  I  can  well  believe  that  he 
fulfilled  the  direction  in  Deut.  xvii.  18,  and  wrote  him  a  coPy  of 
this  law,  and  read  therein  all  the  days  of  his  life.  And  I  think 
we  may  safely  conjecture  that  these  last  thirteen  years  of  his 
reign  were  among  the  happiest  of  the  long  period  of  the  mon- 
archy. Certainly  they  must  have  been  so  if  the  Deuteronomic 
code  was  approximately  carried  out.  Even  where  its  provisions 
seem  to  us  unpractical,  their  spirit  is  so  exquisitely  humane,  that 
a  modem  reader  may  well  sigh  at  the  slow  pace  of  our  improve- 
ments. Here  is  a  lawbook,  made  in  the  interests  not  of  any 
class  or  caste,  but  of  the  whole  people ;  or,  if  it  does  display  a 

«  The  song  must  be  taken  in  connexion  with  the  prophecy  put  into  the 
mouth  of  Nathan  (see  especially  2  Sam,  vii.  ii-i6)  by  a  writer  who  lived 
when  prophecy  had  long  assumed  a  literary  garb,  and,  in  all  probability,  at 
the  time  assigned  above  to  the  author  of  our  song,  who  "thought  himself 
into  the  soul "  of  David,  just  as  the  author  of  a  Sam.  vii.  5,  ftc.  "thought 
himself  Into  the  soul "  of  David's  prophet. 


'*HIS  REMEMBRANCE  IS  LIKE  MUSIC." 


8> 


preference  for  any  part  of  the  community,  it  is  for  the  poor  and 
weak.  Where  is  the  Christian  nation  which  recognized  this 
even  as  a  standard  to  be  aimed  at,  until  that  great  awakening 
of  the  moral  and  religious  conscience — or,  in  Bible  language, 
that  great  Day  of  the  Lord  (Jehovah) — which  filled  up  the  close 
of  the  eighteenth  century  ?  Well  said  the  author  of  Deutero- 
nomy, in  the  introduction '  which  (after  perhaps  a  few  years' 
experience  of  the  benefits  to  the  nation  at  large  of  the  system 
introduced  through  him)  he  prefixed  to  his  original  work,  IV/tat 
great  nation  is  there^  that  hath  statutes  and  judgments  so 
righteous  as  all  this  law  {f draft)  ^  which  I  set  before  you  this  day? 
(Deut.  iv.  8).  He  speaks,  no  doubt,  in  the  assumed  character 
of  Moses ;  but  by  the  three  times  repeated  expression  great 
nation  (see  w.  6-8)  he  reveals  the  fact  that  the  people  of 
Israel  had,  either  through  God's  longsuffering  mercy  (Rom.  ii.  4) 
or  through  His  blessing  upon  its  obedience,  attained  a  high 
degree  of  temporal  prosperity. 

It  is  remarkable  that  not  one  of  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  can 
be  referred  to  these  years.  Either  he  still  devoted  himself  to  the 
exposition  of  the  Deuteronomic  law,  or,  if  he  delivered  original 
prophecies  of  his  own,  he  did  not  afterwards  care  to  reproduce 
them,  except  of  course  so  far  as  their  contents  reappeared  in 
prophecies  of  later  reigns.  At  any  rate,  in  spite  of  his  melan- 
choly statements  at  an  earlier  and  a  later  period,  I  make  no  doubt 
that  .these  thirteen  years  were  a  time  of  comparative  happiness 
to  the  prophet,  that,  like  Isaiah,  he  enjoyed  the  society  of 
friends  and  disciples,  and  that  to  these  among  others  he  refers  in 
a  subsequent  discourse  respecting  those  captives  in  Babylon 
on  whom  Jehovah  graciously  promised  to  set  His  eyes  for  good 
(Jer.  xxiv.  2-7).  Among  these  friends  may  have  been  the  name- 
less author  of  the  first  nine  chapters  of  the  Book  of  Proverbs, 
\.^ich  were  not  written  to  fill  their  present  place,  but  once 
formed  an  independent  work  in  praise  of  true  Wisdom.'  In 
its  genial,  persuasive  tone  and  sunny  spirit,  this  book  reminds 
us  not  so  much  of  Jeremiah  as  of  the  exhortations  in  the  Book 
of  Deuteronomy,  like  which  it  inculcates  the  doctrine,  so  well 
adapted  to  young  pupils  and  primitive  nations,  that  the  fear  of 
God  is  the  one  source  of  earthly  happiness. 

■  On  the  critical  analysis  of  the  book,  see  end  of  Chapter  VII. 
•  "Job  and  Solomon"  (1887),  p.  156,  &c. ;  comp.  Stanley,  "Jewisk 
Church,"  iL  170,  ftc. 


90 


JEREMIAH. 


ti< 


My  readers  will  admit  that  there  is  nothing  violent  or  far« 
fetched  in  the  view  which  I  have  put  forward,  and  which  fits 
itself  admirably  into  a  harmonious  and  well-proportioned  his- 
torical picture  of  the  times.  There  were  three  orders  of  God's 
ministers  in  what  by  anticipation  I  may  venture  to  call  the 
Jewish  Church— priests,  wise  men  or  moral  teachers,  and  pro- 
phets. Their  respective  functions  are  well  indicated  in  a  popu- 
lar saying  reported  by  Jeremiah  (xviii.  i8),  Religious  direction 
shall  not  be  lost  from  the  priest,  nor  counsel  from  the  wise  many 
nor  revelation  from  the  prophet.  There  is  no  doubt  that  other 
prophets  of  the  nobler  type  were  on  friendly  terms  with  the  best 
of  the  wise  men,  whose  very  language  they  sometimes  borrow,* 
and  how  can  Jeremiah  have  been  unacquainted  with  so  eminent 
a  wise  man  as  the  author  of  this  lovely  treatise,  so  closely  akin 
to  his  own  favourite  book,  Deuteronomy?  The  value  of  such 
conjectures  (which,  when  supported  by  all  the  attainable  evi- 
dence, approach  indefinitely  near  to  facts)  is  that  they  help 
to  make  the  Bible  story  live  again  to  us,  and  I  hope  never  to 
cease  repeating  that  this  is  one  of  the  greatest  tasks  of  the 
Christian  teachers  of  our  day,  and  closely  connected  with  the 
future  of  Christianity  among  the  educated  classes. 

The  wise  men  or  moral  teachers  flourished  most  in  periods 
of  tranquillity.  It  was  in  such  a  period — that  of  Solomon — that 
we  can  first  confidently  trace  them,  and  a  not  less  golden  oppor- 
tunity was  furnished  for  their  work  by  these  last  thirteen  years 
of  Josiah.  Alas  that  the  "  fine  gold  "  so  soon  "  became  dim  " 
(Lam.  iv.  i)  1  Alas  that  the  teachers  so  soon  had  to  become 
learners  again  in  the  stern  school  of  calamity  !  The  inspired 
poet  to  whom  I  owe  my  motto  spoke  of  a  summer  sky,  with 
its  sweet  vicissitudes  of  sun  and  shower,  causing  the  grass  to 
spring  up,  and  all  homely,  common  blessings.  Suddenly  and 
without  a  warning,  that  smiling  heaven  became  black  with 
clouds.  Do  not  let  us  despise  the  elementary  lesson  which  this 
supports,  and  which  it  took  God's  ancient  people  so  long  to 
learn.  Trust  not  the  future ;  fierce  are  the  storms  of  spring,  but 
those  of  summer  can  be  as  wild ;  God  is  not  bound  to  make  the 
years  resemble  each  other  in  the  cloying  sweetness  of  perpetual 
ease.     Midway  in  life''  to  each  of  the  two  best  kings  of  Judah 

•  *'  The  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,"  note  on  Isa.  xxviii.  23.    In  Jer.  viii.  9, 
our  prophet  refers  perhaps  to  the  less  religious  class  of  wise  men. 
■  Hitiiig  would  render,  in  the  opening  line  of  Hezekiah's  psalm  (Iso, 


"his  remembrance  is  like  music* 


9» 


came  a  sore  calamity  ;  Hezekiah  became  sick  unto  death,  but 
the  Lord's  hand  held  him  back  ; '  Josiah,  at  the  same  age  of  39," 
was  overmatched  by  a  too  powerful  opponent,  and  died  in  battle. 
This  is  how  it  came  about,  and  why  we  should  regard  this  event 
as  one  of  the  greatest  tragedies  of  the  sacred  story. 

Let  us  now  go  back  in  imagination  about  twenty  years  to  the 
time  when  the  Scythian  hordes  overran  Assyria  and  Babylonia. 
Both  countries,  as  we  remember,  suffered  cruelly,  but  the 
Assyrians,  up  to  this  time  the  more  aggressive  and  warlike  race, 
had  at  length  been  overtaken  by  a  lassitude  which  had  de- 
stroyed their  physical  power  of  recovering  from  injury.  They 
had  added  conquest  to  conquest,  but  taken  no  pains  to  weld 
their  dominions  into  a  durable  empire,  and  so  revolt  followed 
upon  revolt,  and  the  reign  of  Assurbanipal  was  like  the  last  fine 
day  in  autumn —the  too  brilliant  forerunner  of  a  period  of  trouble 
and  disaster.  The  death  of  Assurbanipal  (was  it  626  B.C.  ?) 
certainly  fell  in  the  first  part  of  the  reign  of  Josiah,  and  the 
dangerous  position  of  that  great  king's  successor  may  have  en- 
couraged Josiah  to  extend  his  own  sway  over  part  of  the  former 
kingdom  of  Ephraim,  for  we  find  him  continuing  his  iconoclastic 
progress  to  Bethel  and  "  the  cities  of  Samaria  ^  (2  Kings  xxiii. 
15-19 ;  comp.  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  6).  At  any  rate,  Neco  II.,  the 
reigning  Pharaoh,  an  enterprising  monarch  (as  we  know  from 
Herodotus),*  and  strong  in  all  military  resources,  resolved  to 


xxxviii.  10),  "  In  the  middle  of  my  days  must  I  go,"  &c. ;  comp.  the  ex- 
treme limit  of  the  age  of  man  in  Psa.  xc.  10.  A  suggestive  even  if  wrong 
rendering  ! 

*  Isa.  xxxviii.  17,  thou  hast  held  back  my  soul  from  the  pit  of  destruction. 
R.V.'s  rendering  is  barely  possible ;  but  the  text  only  says,  "  thou  hast 
loved  my  soul  out  of,"  &a  I  prefer  to  follow  the  reading  of  the  Septuagint 
and  the  Vulgate,  with  most  recent  critics. 

•  With  most,  I  assume  the  correctness  of  the  revised  text  of  a  Kings 
TBdl  z. 

3  Is  it  possible  to  account  for  Jeremiah's  special  kindness  and  courtesy 
towards  northern  Israel  in  chaps,  iii.  and  xxxi.  by  a  desire  to  make  up  for 
the  judicial  severity  of  his  royal  patron  (2  Kings  xxiii,  19.  20),  which  must 
have  deeply  wounded  the  feelings  of  the  remnant  of  Ephraim  ? 

<  In  V.  21,  two  words  need  correction  from  3  Esdras  i.  25 — "house"  be- 
comes "Euphrates  ";  "  disguised  himself  "  becomes  "  firmly  resolved  "—the 
latter  correction  is  also  confirmed  by  the  Septuagint  ;  lastly,  where  the 
received  text  reads  "  to  make  haste,"  I  follow  Klostermann  in  reading  "in 
a  dream." 


9a 


JEREMIAH. 


profit  by  the  manifest  weakness  of  Assyria.  In  the  spring  of  6o8| 
he  began  a  series  of  campaigns,  designing  to  conquer  one  by 
one  the  provinces  of  feudatory  states  of  the  Ninevite  empire. 
Of  these  feudatory  states  Judah  had  formerly  been  one.  I  think 
it  probable  that  Josiah  had  for  some  time  past,  like  Hezekiah 
(2  Kings  xviii.  7),  refused  tribute  to  the  Assyrian  suzerain ;  at 
least,  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  Josiah  took  the 
field  against  Neco,  as  he  presently  did,  in  the  character  of 
a  vassal  of  Nineveh.  This  is  all  that  the  earlier  of  the  two 
Hebrew  narrators  says  on  the  intervention  of  Josiah, — 

In  his  days  Pharaoh  Neco  ki,ig  of  Egypt  went  up  against 
the  king  of  Assyria  to  the  river  Euphrates :  and  king  Josiah 
went  against  him,  and  he  slew  him  at  Megiddo  when  he  had 
seen  him  (2  Kings  xxiii.  29). 

The  Chronicler  is  rather  more  full.  He  feels  the  fragmentary 
character  of  his  preceding  record,  and  connects  this  record  with 
the  sad  story  which  follows  in  a  purely  mechanical  manner. 

After  all  this — that  Josiah  had  prepared  the  temple,  Neco 
king  of  Egypt  went  up  to  fight  by  Carchemish  on  the  Euphrates ; 
and  Josiah  went  out  against  him.  And  Neco  sent  messengers 
to  him,  saying.  What  have  I  to  do  with  thee,  king  of  Judah  f 
Not  against  thee  am  I  come  this  day  j  for  upon  Euphrates  is  my 
war.  And  Elohim  hath  commanded  me  in  a  dream  j  keep  thee 
away  from  Elohim,  who  is  with  me,  that  he  destroy  thee  not.  But 
Josiah  turned  not  his  face  from  him,  for  he  had  firmly  resolved 
to  fight  with  him,  and  hearkened  not  unto  the  words  of  Neco 
from  the  mouth  of  Elohim  s  and  he  came  to  fight  with  him  in 
the  valley  of  Megiddo  (2  Chron.  xxxv.  20-22).' 

We  may  perhaps  regard  it  as  a  historical  fact  that  Neco  sent 
an  embassy  to  Josiah  ;  the  Chronicler  certainly  preserves  some 


*  This  delightful  writer  becomes  our  chief  authority  for  this  period,  as 
Brugscb  in  an  eloquent,  melancholy  sentence  tells  us  ("  Geschichte  i£gyp- 
tens,"  ed.  i,  p.  737).  From  Herod,  ii,  152,  iv.  42,  we  learn  to  respect  in 
Neco  (NcKwc)  the  predecessor  of  Lesseps  (for  the  Egyptian  king  fully  de. 
ferved  to  succeed  in  cutting  through  the  isthmus  of  Suez)  and  of  Diaz  and 
Vasco  de  Gama  (in  the  circumnavigation  of  Africa).  If  Neco  and  his 
imitator,  the  Corinthian  tyrant  Periander,  had  but  succeeded  in  their 
enterprising  schemes,  how  profoundly  they  would  have  affected  the  course 
of  history  1  The  true  cause  of  Neco's  abandonment  of  the  canal  was  pro- 
bably, not  the  supposed  oracle  in  Herodotus,  but  the  necessity  of  increasing 
bis  forces  for  the  defence  of  the  Egyptian  frontier  after  his  defeat  in  Asia. 
On  the  canal,  comp.  Ebers,  "  Durch  Gosen  zum  Sinai,"  p.  471,  &c. 


"his  remembrance  is  like  music' 


95 


bistoric  traditions  omitteil  in  Kings.  Even  the  contents  of  the 
message  are  in  themselves  probable  enough.  Like  the  bold 
statement  of  the  Rabshakeh  in  Isa.  xxxvi.  lo,  they  may  be  fitly 
illustrated  by  the  striking  description  of  a  dream-oracle  in  the 
AnnaJs  of  Assurbanipal.'  Neco  had  his  own  prophets  who  could 
doubtless  interpret  dreams.  If,  however,  we  decline  the  con- 
jectural reading  "  in  a  dream  "  (see  below),  we  may,  if  we  will, 
follow  3  Esdras  i.  28,  when /he  words  of  Neco  become  the  words 
of  Jeremiah.  Certainly,  it  is  probable  enough  that.  Jeremiah's 
person  had  a  supern.itur.il  sanctity  in  the  eyes  of  Egyptian  as 
well  as  of  Assyrian  generals.  But  we  know  nothing  from  the 
Book  of  Jeremiah  of  any  advice  which  he  gave  to  Josiah,  and 
the  point  of  the  narrative  seems  to  be  that  even  Neco  had  a  true 
presentiment,  while  Josiah,  the  darling  of  God  and  man,  rushed 
blindly  to  his  fate.  But  what  was  the  cause  of  his  aggressive 
conduct?  It  is  quite  impossible  that  he  should  liave  been 
affected  by  considerations  of  statecraft,  not  merely  because  he 
was  the  friend  of  Jeremiah,  and  must  have  accepted  as  Divine 
the  early  fulminations  of  the  prophet  (chap,  ii.),  but  also  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  case.  For  policy  would  have  suggested 
to  him  either  to  help  Neco,  or  at  any  rate  not  to  oppose  him. 
What  harm  could  the  Pharaoh  possibly  do  to  the  Jews  ?  Sup- 
posing that  he  defeated  the  Assyrians,  would  he  not  soon  have 
more  formidable  opponents  in  the  Medes  and  Babylonians,'  a 
rumour  of  whose  warlike  movements  must  by  this  time  have 
reached  Palestine,  and  be  only  too  glad  to  return  within  his  own 
borders  ? 

I  think  that  a  comprehensive  study  of  the  history  of  revealed 
religion  suggests  the  true  explanation.  God  sometimes  sacri- 
fices the  individual  for  the  sake  of  the  community— allows  him 
to  become  the  victim  of  dangerous  illusions,  in  order  that  they 
may  be  seen  to  be  illusions.  Josiah — if  I  have  described  him 
rightly — made  the  Scripture  of  Deuteronomy  the  rule  of  his 
life.     It  was  not  merely  a  formal  but  a  spiritual  obedience  that 


■^1 


»  "  Records  of  the  Past,"  ix.  52.  It  was  Assurbanipal's  prophet  who 
had  the  dream.  Probably,  like  the  Egyptian  priests,  when  they  sought  for 
cracles,  he  slept,  like  Samuel,  near  the  holy  place,  and  regarded  his 
"  thoughts  from  visions  of  the  night  "  (Job  iv.  13)  as  necessarily  Divine. 

•  Josephus  ("  Ant."  x.  5,  i)  actually  says  that  Neco's  object  w»s  to  wat 
with  the  Medes  and  Babylonians,  "  who  had  ovRrth'-'>w .:  the  empire  of  tht 
Assyrians." 


94 


JEREMIAH. 


he  gave  to  it ;  he  performed  God's  law  from  love.    I  do  not  b 
this  equalize  him  with  our  Lord  or  even  with  His  saintly  fol- 
lowers ;  but  upon  the  whole  we  must  believe  him  to  have  assimi- 
lated that  great  idea,  first  clearly  announced,  though  not  in 
such  few  words,  by  Hosea,  and  incorporated  into  the  prophetic 
portion  of  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy — that  "  God  is  love." 
Josiah  cannot  have  known  his  countrymen  as  Jeremiah  knew 
them ;  he  was  of  too  exalted  a  rank  to  gauge  their  spiritual 
attainments.    The  idea  that  his  reformation  was  half  a  failure 
could  never  have  occurred  to  him,  and  if  suggested  by  another, 
it  would  have  been  against  nature  for  him  to  admit  it.    This, 
then,  was  one  of  the  illusions  to  which  he  became  a  victim — the 
illusion  that  his  countrymen  knew  and  served  Jehovah,  and  were 
consequently  the  objects  of  His  loving  favour,  in  the  same  sense 
or  degree  as  himself.    The  other  was  one  to  which  in  all  pro- 
ba'^'l'ty  even  Jeremiah  was  still  subject,  in  common  with  such  a 
noble  and  inspired  religious  thinker  as  the  author  of  the  little 
book  on  Divine  Wisdom  in  Prov.  i.-ix.     It  was  this — that  in 
the  long  run  righteousness  is  rewarded  in  this  world  by  pros- 
perity,  and  unrighteousness  punished  by  adversity.     Josiah 
would  certainly  have  called  himself  a  righteous  man,  not  in  the 
sense  of  that  Chinese  who  said  that  he  had  never  committed  a 
single  "  sin  "  (he  added  that  neither  had  his  father  nor  his 
grandfather  ever  done  so),  but  in  the  sense  that  he  had  given 
his  heart  to  God,  and  that  his  chief  desire  was  to  perform  that 
law  which  he  so  much  loved.    He  must  have  argued  therefore 
(comp.  the  argument  which  Assurbanipal  pleads  to  I  star)  *  that 
Jehovah  would  meet  love  with  love,  and  reward  him  openly  for 
his  faithful  obedience.    It  would  have  been  quite  intelligible 
had  Josiah  aspired  to  revive  the  glorious  days  of  David.    Dr. 
Oort  of  Leyden  and  Mr.  F.  W.  Newman  have  indeed  too 
boldly  conjectured  that  Psa.  Ixxii.  expresses  such  anticipations 
on  the  part  of  one  of  Josiah's  subjects,  and  Deut.  xx.,  xxi.  might 
conceivably  have  stimulated  warlike  feelings  in  the  monarch. 
But  at  any  rate,  when,  at  the  head  of  warriors  not  less  righteous 
(as  he  fondly  supposed),  Josiah  took  the  field  against  a  heathen 
invader,  he  must,  one  imaginesj  have  been  full  of  a  David-like 
boldness  and  faith.    Nor,  sympathetic  as  he  must  have  been 
towards  pious  psalmists,  can  he  have  failed  to  recall  those  words 
which  a  recent  poet  had  put  into  the  mouth  of  David,— 

<  See  '*  Records  of  the  Past."  ix.  51. 


''his  remembrance  is  like  music." 


95 


Jtkovdk  dealt  with  me  according  to  my  righteousness, 

According  to  the  cleanness  of  my  hands  he  recompensed  me. 
Because  I  kept  the  ways  of  Jehovah, 

And  did  not  wickedly  depart  from  my  Godi 
Flor  all  his  ordinances  were  before  me. 

And  I  did  not  put  away  his  statutes  from  met 
t  was  also  perfect  tou*rds  him. 

And  I  kept  myself  from  guiltiness. 
So  thougavest  me  thy  shield  of  victory  { 

Thy  right  hand  held  me  up. 

And  thy  condescension  made  me  great, 
t  pursued  mine  enemies  and  overtook  them  ; 

And  turned  not  again  till  I  had  consumed  them, 
I  dashed  them  to  pieces  that  they  could  not  rise, 

But  fell  under  my  feet  (Psa.  xviii.  20-33  >  35~3^)- 

But  Still  more  must  he  have  thought  of  those  glowing  benedic- 
tions at  the  end  of  Deuteronomy  which  are  expressly  attached 
to  the  faithful  observance  of  the  book  of  the  covenant, — 

And  it  shall  come  to  pass  .  .  .  that  Jehovah  thy  God  will  set 
thee  on  high  above  all  nations  of  the  earth.  Blessed  shall  thou 
be  in  the  city,  and  blessed  in  the  field.  Blessed  shall  be  thy  basket 
and  thy  store.  Blessed  shall  thou  be  when  thou  contest  in,  and 
blessed  when  thou  goest  ovt.  Jehovah  shall  cause  thine  enemies 
that  rise  up  against  thee  to  be  smitten  before  thy  face  j  they  shall 
come  out  against  thee  one  way,  and  flee  before  thee  seven  ways 
(Deut.  xxviii.  1-8). 

For  it  was  not  a  war  of  conquest  in  which  Josiah  was  engaging, 
but  a  holy  war.  The  south  ot  the  land  of  Israel  had,  it  is  true, 
been  spared  ;  but^  both  in  his  reforming  progress,  and,  we  may 
now  add,  even  in  his  final  choice  of  a  battlefield,  Josiah  de- 
clared himself  to  be  the  rightful  king  both  of  north  and  of  south 
— the  legal  representative  of  David  and  Solomon.*  If  the 
Assyrians  had  withdrawn  their  heavy  hand  from  the  territory 
of  Ephraim,  was  it  to  be  endured  that  another  unbelieving  foe 
should  pitch  his  tents  in  the  very  heart  of  the  sacred  land? 
And  so  no  doubt  costly  sacrifices  were  offered  in  the  temple 
before  the  army  set  forth,  and  the  twentieth  psalm  was  sung, 
containing  the  words, — 

Now  am  I  sure  that  Jehovah  saveth  kis  anointed, 

He  will  answer  him  from  his  holy  heaven 

With  the  mighty  saving  acts  of  kis  right  iuind  (PSa.  xx.  6). 

*  See  above,  p.  6a 


I 


96 


JEREMIAH. 


I 


The  two  armies  met  in  the  strategically  important  valley 
or,  to  use  the  more  accurately  descriptive  term,  plain  (Heb., 
6ii*dA,  a  broad  plain  between  mountains)  of  Jezreel  or  Esdra- 
elon.'  The  name  of  the  place  was  confounded  by  Herodotus' 
informant  with  that  of  a  town  on  the  north-east  frontier  of 
Egypt,  which  I  shall  have  to  mention  again  later ;  it  was  really 
Megiddo,  not  Magdol,  where  the  fatal  clash  of  arms  took  place 
(2  Kings  xxiii.  29).  By  what  route  did  the  Egyptians  arrive  ? 
Just  before  his  reference  to  Neco's  defeat  of  the  **  Syrians "  at 
"  Magdolos,"  Herodotus  speaks  of  the  docks  where  the  ships 
were  built  which  that  king  "  employed  wherever  he  had  occa* 
sion."*  It  is  not  impossible  that,  to  avoid  hostilities  with 
Josiah,  Neco  took  his  troops  by  sea  to  some  landing-place 
north  of  Judah  proper — say,  to  D5r,  an  ancient  and  famous 
port,3  which  probably  remained  Phoenician,  even  after  Nafath 
(or  Nafoth)  Dor  was  conquered  by  the  Israelites  (Josh.  xi.  2, 
xii.  23,  Judges  i.  27,  i  Kings  iv.  11).  Its  Phoenician  inhabitants 
were  doubtless  as  politic  as  Josiah  was  the  reverse.  Frcm  Dor 
(slightly  to  the  north  of  the  modern  village  Tantura)  to  Megiddo 
in  the  great  plain  of  Jezreel  was  no  great  distance ,  Duru  (Dor) 
and  Magidu  or  Magadu  (Megiddo)  are  in  fact  mentioned  to- 
gether in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions.  The  alternative  is  to 
suppose  that  Neco  took  the  same  route  as  Thothmes  III.  (B.C 
1600?),  in  whose  reign,  as  the  inscriptions  tell,  "Egypt  placed 
its  frontier  where  it  pleased,"  and  who  led  his  invading  forces 
by  land  to  "  Maketa  "  or  Megiddo,  where  he  routed  the  combined 
forces  of  Syria  and  Mesopotamia.^  At  any  rate,  it  was  on  the 
battlefield  of  Megiddo,^  famous  already  in  the  poetry  of  Israel 
by  the  defeat  of  Jabin  and  Sisera,  and  not  less  celebrated  in 
apocalyptic  vision  (Rev.  xvi.   16),  that  the  unequal  struggle 

*  Herod,  ii.  158. 

*  For  the  historical  associations  connected  with  this  "battlefield  of 
Syria,"  .anging  from  Thothmes  III.  and  Rameses  II.  to  Bonaparte  and 
Kleber,  see  Lias's  note  on  Judg.  vi.  33  (Cambridge  Bible). 

3  See  Schlirer,  "  The  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,"  E.  T. 
Div.  ii.,  Vol.  i.,  p.  88. 

4  ••  Records  of  the  Past,"  ii.  37-39  (Birch) ;  comp.  Brugsch,  "Geschlchte 
Agyptens,"  ed.  z,  pp.  395-6. 

s  On  a  low  promontory  thrown  out  from  the  Samaritan  hills  towards  the 
recess  between  the  Nazarene  range  and  Jebel  Da^y  ("Little  Hermon") 
stood  the  Roman  Legto,  whence  the  modern  Le/iin.  Here,  too,  probably, 
Q  the  most  peaceful  of  landscapes,  stood  M^iddo. 


II 


"HIS  REMEMBRANCE  IS  LIKE  MUSIC." 


97 


between  Neco  and  Josiah  took  place.  Alas  I  the  men  of  Israel 
fled  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  battle  ; '  it  was  as  if  (applying 
a  well-known  Hebrew  figure')  the  aspect  of  the  angry  Egyptian 
king  had  scattered  his  enemies.  The  fate  of  Ahab  became  that 
of  Josiah:  "  a  certain  man  drew  a  bow  at  a  venture,  and  smote 
the  king  of  Israel"  (i  Kings  xxii.  34,  comp.  2  Chron.  xxxv.  23). 
He  was  brought  to  Jerusalem  to  die.  What  were  his  last 
thoughts?  Did  he  still  trust  God?  None  can  answer  that 
question ;  but  that  the  faith  of  many  of  his  subjects  was  shaken, 
we  may  be  certain.  The  problem  of  a  perfect  and  upright  man 
given  into  the  hand  of  "  the  Satan  "  became  from  this  time  forth 
the  problem  of  Jewish  wisdom — the  problem  of  which  there  is 
but  a  faintly  hinted  solution  in  the  noblest  monument  of  that 
wisdom,  the  Book  of  Job. 

That  blessed  results  accrued  in  the  long  run  to  the  Jewish 
Church  from  this  great  calamity,  could  easily  be  shown.  From 
Megiddo  the  eye  turns  instinctively  to  the  hillside  on  which, 
twelve  miles  distant,  lovely  Nazareth  stands.  But  who  thought 
of  looking  beyond  the  sad  sights  of  the  immediate  present  ? 
Faith  was  paralyzed ;  the  heart  of  the  nation  seemed  to  stand 
still.  Unmixed  sadness  and  consternation  spread  through  all 
classes.  The  more  recent  of  our  two  narrators  makes  this 
statement,  to  which  I  shall  have  to  return  later, — 

And  all  Judah  and  Jerusalem  mourned  for  Josiah.  And 
Jeremiah  lamented  for  Josiah :  and  all  the  singing  men  and  the 
singing  women  spake  of  Josiah  in  their  lamentations  unto  this 
day  J  and  they  were  made  an  ordinance  (/.*.,  institution)  in  Israel 
(2  Chron.  xxxv.  24,  25). 

Such  a  national  mourning  was  doubtless  very  different  from 
the  prescribed  lamentations  at  an  ordinary  king's  death ;  one 
thinks  of  the  mourning  after  the  field  of  Flodden  in  Scottish 
history.  The  whole  land  mourned  ;  every  family  felt  bereaved 
(Zech.  xii.  11, 12).    But  some  may  in  a  special  sense  be  called 


■  So  we  must  explain  the  words,  luhen  he  had  seen  him.  It  is  not  stated 
in  the  Old  Testament  that  the  men  of  Israel  fled  ;  but  we  may  safely  pre- 
sume  that  the  presence  of  the  king  was  still  as  all-important  to  the  army  as 
in  Ahab's  time.  So  Josephus  understood  the  Biblical  passages.  He  says 
that  Josiah  was  setting  his  army  in  array  #hen  one  of  the  Egypti^os  sbot 
him,  and  put  a  stop  to  his  eagerness  for  the  fray  ;  on  which  he  commanded 
ft  retreat  to  be  sounded. 

*  See  e.g.  Lam.  iv.  16. 


98 


JEREMIAH. 


*•  chief  mourners."  First  of  all,  the  poor  and  weak,  to  whom 
it  had  been  Josiah's  delight  to  do  justice  ;  and  next,  the  friends 
of  spiritual  religion  with  whom  from  his  earliest  youth  he  had 
been  so  closely  allied.  Let  us  sympathize,  then,  most  deeply 
with  Jeremiah,  whose  hopes  have  once  more  been  dashed  to  the 
ground.  For  the  result  of  the  defeat  and  death  of  Josiah  was, 
not  merely  the  reduction  of  Judah  to  the  rank  of  a  subject-state, 
but  above  all,  the  revival  of  idolatry  and  the  sore  discourage- 
ment of  the  little  band  of  reformers.  Jeremiah,  the  most 
illustrious  mourner,  must  indeed  have  felt  the  blow.  Henceforth 
his  life  is  a  true  martyrdom,  only  relieved  by  his  rock-like 
constancy,  and  by  that  wondrous  revelation  to  which  I  have 
already  alluded,  and  which  represents  the  high-water  mark  of 
Jewish  religion  before  the  Captivity. 

The  story  of  Israel  is  a  succession  of  tragedies  ;  but  perhaps 
there  is  none  more  touching  than  the  tragedy  of  the  death  of 
Josiah.  And  for  this  reason — that  he  is  so  entirely  innocent. 
His  case  was  not  that  of  so  many  of  the  later  Jews,  who  fell 
back  into  an  illusion  which  revelation  ought  to  have  dissipated. 
No ;  he  could  not  have  believed  otherwise  than  he  did.  What 
an  enigma  his  fate  would  remain,  if  Jesus  Christ  had  not  ratified 
the  presentiments  of  the  noblest  Jews  since  Jeremiah,  and 
proved  that  the  way  to  the  crown  lies  by  the  cross.  Can  we 
doubt  that  even  this  defeated  king  has  received  a  crown — the 
crown  of  one  who  has  lived  by  the  light  of  God's  word,  and 
ventured  all  rather  than  distrust  His  promises?  And  in  the 
spirit  of  Josiah's  life  shall  not  we,  my  readers,  follow  him  7 
Say  not  that  the  standard  is  too  high,  that  such  passionate 
earnestness  is  not  in  our  character,  that  such  devotion  to  con- 
science is  Quixotic.  It  is  the  glory  of  the  Gospel  that,  by  using 
its  resources,  the  common  man  or  woman  may  exceed  the 
standard  of  the  highest  Old  Testament  saint  (Matt.  xi.  ii). 
Our  heart  may  be  an  unsteady  thing ;  but,  as  the  psalmist  says, 
Jehovah  is  not  only  the  believer's  portion  in  eternity,  but  his 
rock  in  time.  With  God's  "  light  "  and  God's  "  truth  "  (that  is, 
"faithfulness")  for  guides  (Psa.  xl'ii.  3),  the  weakest  character 
and  the  strongest  gain  alike  a  supernatural  depth  and  serious- 
ness. They  will  go  with  us  into  battle,  like  the  ark  of  Jehovah, 
and  ensure  us  the  victory,  even  though,  as  in  Josiah's  case,  the 
victory  may  not  be  manifest  even  to  ourselves  till  we  reach  the 
other  side— I  will  not  say,  of  death,  but  of  life.    With  these 


**BIS  REMEMBRANCE  IS  LIKE  MUSIC.** 


99 


heavenly  guides,  we  need  fear  no  shocks  whether  to  our  out- 
ward or  to  our  inward  being.  Riches  may  take  to  themselves 
wings  and  flee  away;  friends  may  pass  before  us  into  the  "silent 
land  *• ;  forms  of  doctrine  may,  as  with  Josiah's  contemporaries, 
prove  to  be  not  free  from  educational  illusion ;  but "  Israel's 
Rock"  (Isa.  XXX.  29,  R.V.)  remains.  My  flesh  and  my  heart 
failetht  but  God  is  the  rock  of  my  hearty  and  my  portion  for  ever 
(Psa.  Ixxiii.  a6). 

I  spoke  of  Josiah's  death  as  one  of  the  greatest  of  religious 
tragedies.  Alas  that  in  Israel's  history  there  should  be  one 
still  greater,  which,  if  we  felt  it  aright,  would  make  our  hearts 
bleed.  It  is  a  perennial  tragedy— that  of  the  veiled  face  set 
forth  in  sculpture  on  the  lovely  door  of  the  Chapter-room  of 
my  own  cathedral.  The  mourning  of  the  people  of  Judah 
for  Josiah  is  taken  in  the  Book  of  Zechariah  (xii.  10-14)  as 
an  emblem  of  a  mourning  yet  future,  when  God's  "  ancient 
people "  *  (Isa.  xliv.  7)  shall  look  on  him  •  whom  they  pierced^ 
and  shall  mourn  for  him  as  one  mourneth  for  an  only  son^  and 
as  the  mourning  for  Hadad-rimmon  ^  in  the  plain  of  Megiddo. 
The  tragedy  lies  in  the  well-nigh  two  thousand  years'  wander- 
ings  of  Israel   through   a   labyrinth   of  slowly  brightening 


■  It  la  often  impossible  to  determine  with  certitude  between  different 
interpretations,  and  one  may  sometimes  believe  that,  lilce  other  Oriental 
writers,  the  prophets  and  psalmists  meant  to  be  enigmatical  (comp. 
Delitzsch's  note  on  Psa.  Ixxii.  15).  Delitzsch  explains  this  phrase  of  the 
people  of  the  antediluvian  world ;  Bredenkamp  (the  latest  commentator, 
who  doubtless  ought  to  be  the  wisest),  of  the  people  of  Israd,  called  to  be 
God's  people  since  the  earliest  times. 

■  The  received  text  has  "  unto  me,"  but  the  last  letter  (*)  representing 
the  pronoun  "me,"  is  probably  the  first  letter,  or  a  fragment  of  the  first 
letter,  of  some  lost  word,  the  middle  part  of  which  has  dropped  out,  and 
the  last  part  is  represented  (or  misrepresented)  by  the  letters  DS-  The 
reading  "unto  him"  is,  probably,  only  a  conjectural  emendation,  the  accept- 
ance of  which  does  not  modify  the  syntactic  peculiarity  of  the  phrase.  I 
have  adopted  it  above,  simply  from  ignorance  of  the  true  reading,  which  may 
either  have  been  a  proper  name  or  a  term  descriptive  of  character  or  office. 
Who  was  the  person  alluded  to?  Was  it  the  same  martyr  who  seems  to 
be  referred  to  in  the  ancient  prophecy  adopted  and  modified  in  Isa.  lii. 
Z3-Iiii.  ?  If  so,  Jehovah  sympathized  with  His  martyr,  and  regarded  the 
"  insult "  as  offered  to  Himself  (cf.  Psa.  bcix.  9). 

9  Jerome  says,  "  Adadremmon  is  a  city  near  Jerusalem,  now  called 
Maximlanopolis,  in  the  field  of  Magcddon,  where  the  righteous  king  Josiah 
was  wounded  by  the  Pharaoh  called  Nechao."    At  a  short  distance  from 


m 


ri 


-iMI 


lOO 


JEREMIAH. 


\i 


darkness.  The  clue  is  missing ;  when  shall  the  wanderer  find 
it  ?  Sad,  beyond  expression  sad ;  but  is  it  not  a  fascinating 
tragedy  ?  Why  do  so  few  of  us  know  this  ?  Is  it  nothing  to 
you,  all  ye  that  pass  by,  whose  eyes  are  never  satisfied  with 
seeing,  nor  whose  ears  with  hearing,  for  whom  no  poetry  is 
too  sensuous,  no  romance  too  strange?  Ye  who  have  been 
nourished  on  the  story  of  the  Israel  of  Scripture — ^has  it  so 
fully  satisfied  your  curiosity  that  you  have  not  a  thought  for  the 
second  part  of  that  wondrous  tale  ?  Has  no  one  told  you  of  the 
manifold  interest  of  Jewish  history  in  the  middle  ages,  and  of 
Jewish  life  at  the  present  time  ?  Some  of  you,  who  think  scorn 
of  poetry  and  romance,  find  your  pleasure  perhaps  in  the 
records  of  missionary  work  in  heathen  lands.  Is  there  no 
pleasure  to  be  won  from  the  records  of  missions  (not  merely 
English  missions)  to  the  Jews — a  pleasure  mingled  (I  must 
sadly  confess)  with  pain  at  the  faulty  methods  which  have  too 
often  been  adopted,  but  one  which  brings  you  very  near  the 
heart  of  Jesus?  There  may  be  others  among  you  who  fear 
even  this  chastened  pleasure,  and  who  promote  Christian 
missions  simply  from  a  sense  of  duty.  Does  not  the  thought 
of  five  thousand  poor  Jewish  refugees  added  to  the  population 
of  East  London  suggest  to  you  the  idea  of  a  duty — the  duty  of 
bringing  them  to  the  great  Teacher  if  you  can,  but  at  any  rate 
of  helping  them,  and  especially  of  sympathizing  with  them,  of 
giving  some  thought  to  their  past  history  and  present  condition. 
God  hath  not  cast  away  his  people,*  says  St.  Paul,  with  the 
passionate  earnestness  which  is  the  keynote  of  his  character. 
Nay,  a  part  of  the  prophecy  is  being  fulfilled.  A  "  spi'-'t  of 
supplication  "  has  been  "  poured  out "  upon  many  of  those  who 
are  still  in  the  fullest  and  truest  sense  Israelites.  No  people  on 
the  face  of  the  earth  weeps  so  much  for  its  sins  and  their 
punishment  as  the  eastern  Jews.  Those  who  have  once  heard 
them  in  their  synagogues  cry  in  Hebrew,  "  Forgive  us  now, 
forgive  us  now,"  confess  that  they  can  never  forget  it.  It  is 
almost  as  touching  to  see  the  Jews,  as  Sir  Richard  Temple 
truly  remarks,  come  singly  and  quietly,  without  any  form  or 

LejjAn  there  is  still  a  place  called  Rumm&ne,  in  which  the  second  part  of 
the  name  Hadad-rimmon  may  perhaps  survive.    It  ought  to  be  mentioned 
that  there  is  another  explanation  of  Zech.  xii.  ii ;  but  to  do  it  justice,  would 
cany  us  too  far  into  criticism. 
*  Rom.  xi.  X  :  comp.  Jer.  xxxi.  38. 


"his  remembrance  is  like  music" 


101 


ceremony,  to  weep  over  the  beloved  stones  at  the  accustomed 
•*  Wailing-place."  *  When  shall  the  other  part  of  the  prophecy 
be  fulfilled  ?  When  shall  they  look  with  desire  on  Him  whom 
by  their  ignorant  unbelief  they  have  so  long  pierced  ?  ■ 

This  is  the  tragedy  of  Israel — a  people,  than  which  there  is 
none  more  ancient'  nor  more  noble,  but  neglectful  of  its  highest 
honour  and  grandest  privilege.  To  understand  the  causes  of 
this  tragedy,  will  be  the  reward  of  him  who  ponders  the  later 
pages  of  the  romantic  story  of  God's  people. 

■  "  Palestine  Illustrated  "  (1888),  p.  40. 

■  In  a  few  sentences,  one  can  hardly  express  a  point  of  view,  much  less 
give  conclusions.  May  I  therefore  refer  to  the  article  entitled  "  The  Jews 
and  the  Gospel "  in  "The  Expositor,"  1885  (i),  pp.  405-418,  which  seeks 
to  be  just  to  all  who  "turn  upwards  "  (Hos.  vii.  16)  in  Israel,  whether  in  a 
manner  congenial  to  ourselves  or  not. 

9  I  do  not  forget  the  constancy  of  the  old  Egyptian  ethnic  type,  which 
permit',  you,  as  M.  E.  M.  de  VogU^  remarks,  to  confound  the  fellah  who 
guides  you  in  the  Bftlak  museum  with  the  statues  against  which  he  Jostles. 
But  CM  tbe  motley  population  of  Egypt  be  called  a  nation  ? 


PART    II. 

THE  CLOSE  OF  JUDAWS  TRAGEDY. 


-**>*- 


v 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  CLOUDS  RETURN  AFTER  THE  RAIN. 

Conssquences  of  Josiah's  death— Jeremiah's  changed  attitude  towaidi 
Deuteronomy— His  visit  to  Anathotb. 

IN  a  volume  of  poetic  reproductions  of  sacred  stories  by  the 
late  D»  Neale  there  is  one  entitled  "  Josiah,"  which  suggests  a 
modification  of  an  image  employed  in  the  last  chapter.  At  the 
opening  of  Josiah's  reign  it  might  indeed  be  natural  to  compare 
it  to  a  bright  summer  sky,  but  we  who  know  its  sad  termination 
must  feel  with  the  poet  that  the  pensive  beauty  of  an  autumnal 
day  is  a  more  appropriate  figure,  especially  when  we  remember 
how,  even  in  England,  the  glories  of  autumn  sometimes  puss 
away  in  the  tempest  of  a  single  night.  Yes  ;  and  it  was  not 
an  English  but  an  Eastern  winter,  such  as  we  find  described 
by  the  world-weary  Preacher  (Eccles.  xii.  2)  which  followed 
Josiah's  death.  The  religious  results  of  that  great  calamity  were 
twofold.  First,  the  revival,  to  some  extent  at  least,  of  idolatrous 
practices.  This  is  what  Jeremiah  himself  says  (xvii.  2), — The 
sin  of  Judah  is  written  with  a  pen  of  iron  and  with  the  point  of 
a  diamond;  it  is  graven  upon  the  tablet  of  their  hearty  and  upon 
the  horns  of  their  altars;  inasmuch  as  their  children  {still) 
bethink  them  of  their  altars  and  their  Ashkrahs  under  the  leafy 
trees  upon  the  high  hills  (the  conical  hills  of  Judah  which  so 
well  adapt  themselves  to  such  forms  of  worship).  We  cannot 
wonder  at  such  a  natural  though  inopportune  revival.  Deep  in 
the  heart  of  primitive  mm  lies  the  instinct  of  sacred  places  and  of 


THE  CLOUDS  RETURN  AFTER  THE  RAIN. 


103 


polytheism.  It  would  be  absurd  to  connect  Moslem  saint-worship 
as  a  whole  with  the  polytheism  of  the  ancient  Israelites,  but 
who  can  doubt  that  those  little  white  cupolas  (Arabic,  qubba) 
whi^'h  continually  meet  the  eye  in  Palestine,  each  on  its 
eminence,  and  often  (see  the  Palestine  Fund's  photographic 
view  of  Tell  Hazur  near  Banias)  with  its  sacred  tree  or  trees,  are 
the  direct  successors  of  those  "  altars  upon  the  high  hills  under 
the  leafy  trees  "  of  which  Jeremiah  speaks  i  If,  after  the  lapse 
of  centuries,  and  in  spite  of  the  levelling  hand  of  the  conqueror 
and  the  sweeping  torrent  of  invasion,  the  fell&heen  are  still 
drawn  to  the  old  consecrated  spots,  and  gaily  dressed  groups 
can  still  be  seen  going  up  hill  and  down  dale  to  "  visit "  some 
saint  or  prophet  (Z-^.,  his  reputed  tomb),  is  it  wonderful  that 
the  same  fascinating  beliefs  should  have  reasserted  their  sway 
over  the  half-converts  of  Josiah  ?  Why,  even  Mohammed's 
early  converts  longed  after  the  old  Semitic  sacred  trees.  One 
of  the  oldest  Arabic  historical  works*  contains  this  interesting 
tradition, — "  The  Qurashites  and  other  heathen  Arabs  ac- 
counted holy  a  large  green  tree,  and  every  year  had  a  festival 
in  its  honour,  at  which  they  sacrificed  and  hung  their  arras 
upon  it.  On  the  way  to  Hunain  we  called  to  God's  Messenger 
[Mohammed]  that  he  should  appoint  for  us  such  trees.  But  he 
was  terrified  and  said, '  Lord  God,  Lord  God !  ye  speak  even  as 
the  Israelites  did  to  Moses,  Make  us  such  a  god  as  the  others 
have ;  ye  are  still  in  ignorance  ;  those  are  heathen  customs.' " 
Mohammed  could  talk  thus,  for  fortune  was  on  his  side  ;  but 
Jeremiah  had  a  harder  task  to  reconvert  his  contemporaries, 
for  it  must  have  seemed  to  them  as  if  the  old  beliefs  were  not 
merely  pleasant  but  efficacious.  We  may  perhaps  express  their 
thoughts  thus : — "  All  the  early  days  of  Josiah  we  had  pros- 
perity ;  why  ?  Surely  because  we  not  only  appeased  the  god 
of  our  own  nation  but  also  the  old  divinities  of  the  land,  and 
besides  these,  the  gods  of  the  powerful  nations  around  us  who 
need  to  be  propitiated  even  more  (comp.  Jer.  xliv.  17).  We 
believe  that  it  was  the  jealousy  of  these  supernatural  powers,  so 
seriously  injured  by  Josiah,  which  led  to  the  defeat  and  death 
of  that  wrong-headed  king."  The  details  of  this  recrudescence 
of  the  old  wounds  are  not  given  us,  but  the  general  statement 
in  2  Kings  that  the  four  successors  of  Josiah  did  evil  in  the 

■  "  Vakidi's  Book  of  the  Campaigns  of  God's  Messenger,"  by  WellbauseOk 
p.  356- 


I04 


JERBMIAH. 


sight  of  Jehovah  according  to  all  that  their  fathers  had  done^ 
and  that  of  Josephus  respecting  Jehoahaz  in  particular  that  he 
was  "  an  impious  man  and  impure  in  his  course  of  life,"  permits 
us  to  form  but  a  low  estimate  of  the  national  religion.  The 
case  of  Judah  under  its  kings  was  not  like  that  of  England 
under  the  second  Charles.  If  the  "  head  "  was  "  sick,"  we  may 
be  sure  that  the  "  heart "  was  "  faint"  A  formal  revocation  of 
Josiah's  covenant  was  unnecessary ;  it  is  always  simpler  to 
allow  laws  to  fall  into  desuetude  than  to  repeal  them.  Those 
who  liked  to  obey  it,  might  do  so ;  those  who  did  not,  might 
equally  follow  their  inclination.  In  short,  we  can  hardly  doubt 
that  the  wise  and  beautiful  Deuteronomic  law  became  at  this 
time,  in  the  vivid  language  of  another  contemporary  prophet, 
benumbed  or  paralyzed  (Hab.  i.  4). 

In  one  point,  at  any  rate,  it  may  be  reasonably  held  that  the 
work  of  Josiah  was  not  undone,  viz.,  the  abolition  of  the  cruelties 
of  "  the  Topheth."  Although  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  Jeremiah 
forms  part  of  a  section  which  principally  relates  to  the  reign  of 
Jehoiakim,  yet  I  cannot  draw  from  it  the  inference  that  the 
worship  of  Moloch  had  been  restored  after  the  death  of  Josiah* 
In  fact,  V.  13,  where  the  houses  of  the  kings  of  Judah  are 
threatened  with  a  defilement  comparable  to  that  of  the  place 
of  the  Topheth,  sufficiently  shows  that  "  the  Topheth  "  had 
been  disgraced  ever  since  the  Reformation ;  *  the  sins  which  are 
rebuked  must  therefore  be  the  inexpiable  abominations  of 
Manasseh's  reign  (comp.  Jer.  xv.  4).  But  with  this  and 
perhaps  a  few  other  exceptions,  we  may  fairly  assume  that  the 
old  cults  came  to  life  again,  or  rather,  were  brought  back  to  the 
light  of  day.  For  in  fact  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  really 
popular  cult  can  be  put  down  by  main  force.  Neither  Islam 
nor  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  succeeded  in  doing  this. 
Not  to  mention  the  survivals  of  paganism  in  both,  it  is  enough 
to  refer  to  the  communities  of  crypto-Jews  which  so  long 
existed  Loth  in  Christian  and  Mohammedan  countries,  and  one 
of  which  in  Arabia  still  exists.' 

'  How  strong  an  abhorrence  of  Hinnom  was  felt  by  the  later  Israelites  is 
shown  by  the  use  of  Geenna  in  the  New  Testament  for  the  abode  of  con 
denned  spirits.    (Q^TVci&=Gl-ben-hinndm.) 

«  See  an  interesting  article  on  Crypto-Jews  in  the  St.  Jamtii  Gasette, 
May  24,  1888,  and  compare  a  letter  by  George  Eliot  in  her  "  Life  and 
Letters  "  (by  Cross). 


THB  CLOUDS  RETURN  AFTER  THE  RAIN. 


105 


A   passage   in   Psa.  Ixxxv.    has  lately  been  explained  as 
referring  to  this  period.'    We  read  in  v.  8,  according  to  A.V 
and  R.V.,— 

/  will  hear  what  God  the  Lord  [Jehovah]  will  speak  : 
For  he  will  speak  peace  unto  his  people,  and  to  his  saints  .* 
But  let  them  not  turn  again  to  folly. 

Prof.  Comill  thinks  that  the  psalm  reflects  a  definite  historical 
situation,  the  heavy  affliction  referred  to  in  v.  4  being  the  tragic 
death  of  Josiah.  The  psalmist  doubts  the  permanence  of  the 
good  king's  work.  In  w.  9-13  he  gives  an  ideal  picture  of 
Josiah's  reign,  which  will  also  be  true  of  the  time  to  come 
{that  glory  may  dwell  =  •*  that  glory  may  continue  to  dwell ")  if 
Israel  is  faithful  to  its  God.  He  seems  to  hear  Jehovah 
whisper  this  to  him— an  oracle  of  peace,  coupled  with  one  con- 
dition, viz.,  that  the  people  does  not  fall  back  into  idolatry 
And  Prof.  Comill  thmks  that  this  psalm  follows  Psa.  Ixxxiv. 
with  chronological  accuracy,  for  that  lovely  poem,  according  to 
hinii  was  composed  in  the  latter  part  of  the  reign  of  Josiah.  It 
is  a  very  suggestive  and  plausible  view— more  so,  I  think,  than 
Ewald's  conjecture  that  Psa.  1.  expresses  the  mind  of  a  pro- 
phetic writer  (who  agrees  with  Jer.  vii.  22,  23)  when  troubles 
began  to  close  round  Josiah  and  his  people.  Neither  view  can 
I  discuss  here  ;  the  historical  occasions  of  the  psalms  are  not 
to  be  determined  by  a  dictatorial  assertion.  Neither  view,  I  may 
add,  do  I  myself  hold,  but  I  would  rather  that  my  readers  adopted 
one  or  the  other  than  that  they  rejected  all  attempts  to  find 
historical  situations  for  the  sacred  lyrics.  Without  reconstruct- 
ing the  porticoes,  we  shall  not  be  in  a  position  to  do  full  justice 
to  the  inner  glories  of  the  palaces  of  the  Psalter. 

Folly  it  might  most  truly  be  called — this  falling  back  into  a 
purely  nationalistic  view  of  Jehovah,  as  a  supernatural  Power 
not  able  or  willing  at  present  to  protect  his  people,  as  not  even 
the  chief  god  of  a  crowded  Pantheon.  To  such  another  prophet 
exclaims,  with  cutting  irony,  in  the  name  of  the  true  God,  "  Of 
whom  wast  thou  in  fear  that  thou  wast  thus  faithless,  and 
forgattest  Me?  But  thy  works  shall  not  profit  thee;  let  thy 
rabble  of  idols,  when  thou  criest  to  them,  deliver  thee,  if  they 

*  See  essay  by  Dr.  Comill  in  the  Homiletic  Magazine^  July,  i88a.  Tht 
original  is  in  Luthardt's  "  Zeitschrift,"  1881,  p.  337,  &c. 


io6 


JEREMIAH. 


:i^ 


can  t  ** '  But  there  was  also  a  class  of  persons,  not  belonging 
to  the  lowest  ranks,  who  were  differently  and  not  less  injuriously 
affected  by  the  recent  catastrophe.  These  men  could  not  even 
yet  shake  off  the  illusion  that  righteousness  is  always  rewarded 
in  the  present  life  by  prosperity,  and  wickedness  punished 
by  adversity.  They  had  never  been  able  to  assimilate  the 
prophetic  element  in  the  Deuteronomic  fusion  of  legal  and 
evangelical  religion.  They  were  now  more  than  ever  bent  on 
reducing  religion  to  a  system  of  rules  which  might  be  •'  learned 
by  rote"  (Isa.  xxix.  13,  R.V.  margin).  But  they  were  not 
satisfied  with  the  scanty  prominence  given  to  sacrifices  in  the 
Deuteronomic  /or4/i,  and  if  we  may  understand  Jer.  vi.  20  as 
well  as  Jer.  vii.  4  as  referring  to  this  period,  they  attempted  to 
bind  Jehovah  to  them  and  to  their  interests  by  lavish  sacrifices, 
while  sadly  neglecting  those  •'  weighty  matters  of  the  law," 
"judgment,  mercy,  and  faith." 

These  two  classes  of  persons  would  naturally  give  different 
explanations  of  the  recent  calamity.  How  the  former  set  must 
have  argued  we  have  seen.  With  it  the  latter  will  have  agreed 
in  viewing  Josiah's  death  as  a  sign  of  the  Divine  anger.  **  But 
the  sole  divinity,"  they  would  say,  *'  whom  Judah  has  offended 
is  Jehovah.  We  lost  our  king  because  we  did  not  as  a  nation 
observe  the  law  strictly  enough ;  because  idolatrous  customs 
still  lingered  in  our  midst.  More  sacrifices  are  wanted  to  bring 
back  the  sunshine  of  prosperity.  But  at  least  we  need  not  be 
afraid  of  a  severer  punishment.  T/ie  temple  of  Jehovdhj  the 
temple  of  Jehovah;  the  temple  of  Jehovah  are  t/tese,  «>.,  these 
buildings  (Jer.  vii.  4).  Thus  did  these  men  faithfully  hand  on 
the  teaching  of  those  prophets  of  a  former  generation,  who,  as 
Micah  tells  us  (iii.  11),  were  wont  to  lean  upon  Jehovah^  and 
say^  Is  not  Jehovah  among  us  ?  no  evil  can  come  upon  us. 

Such  is  the  obstinacy  of  old  illusions,  even  when  Providence 
attempts,  as  one  might  say,  to  dissipate  them,  even  when  they 
have  become  dangerous  errors.  Let  us  not  be  hard  upon  the 
Jews  ;  how  uncommon  it  is  for  the  actors  of  history  to  be  fully 
able  to  read  its  lessons  I  We  know  that  Josiah's  death  was 
"  the  beginning  of  sorrows  "—the  first  scene  in  the  last  act  of 


'  In  these  words  Prof.  Driver  ("  Isaiah:  His  L4fe  and  Times,"  p.  158) 
condenses  Isa.  Ivii.  11-13  (first  part).  I  have  myself  long  since  adopted 
the  critical  theory  of  Ewald  relative  to  Isa.  Ivi.  9-lvii.  iia  (se«  *•  Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica,"  art.  "  Isaiah  "). 


THE  CLOUDS  RETURN  AFTER  THE  RAIN. 


107 


and 


the  tragedy  (not  indeed  of  that  national  tragedy  which  la 
still  in  progress,  but  of  the  tragedy  of  Israel  before  the  Cap- 
tivity). We  know  that  God  had  decreed  to  send  His  people 
into  captivity.  We  know  His  merciful  object  in  doing  so— 
viz..  first,  to  cure  the  nation  of  idolatry,  and  next,  to  lead 
individuals  to  "  serve  God  for  nought,"  and  after  conceiving  the 
idea  of  "saving  others,"  to  form  the  magnificent  conception 
of  a  perfect  Israelite— Israel's  and  the  world's  Saviour.  We 
know  all  this  ;  but  how  could  the  Jews  ?  Unless  those  are  right 
who  date  the  Book  of  Job  in  this  period,  there  was  but  one 
clear-sighted  Jew — Jeremiah,  and  even  he  could  not  see  to  the 
end  of  God's  ways.  One  step  however  we  are  sure  that  he  took 
now,  if  he  did  not  take  it  before.  He  cannot  any  longer  have 
been  an  itinerant  expounder  of  Deuteronomy.  Nothing  which 
could  be  colourably  represented  as  favouring  mechanical  religion 
was  a  fit  text-book  for  a  progressive  teacher.  It  is  perhaps  a 
significant  fact  in  this  connexion  that,  in  Jeremiah's  epitaph 
(if  I  may  call  it  so)  upon  Josiah,  he  praises  the  king,  not  for 
introducing  the  tdrah,  but  for  doing  justice  to  the  poor,  and 
thus  proving  that  he  "  knew  "  Jehovah  (Jer.  xxii.  16).  Later  on 
he  even  becomes  the  prophet  of  a  "  new  covenant "  which  is  to 
supersede  all  previous  tdrSh  (Jer.  xxxi.  31).  Clearly,  then, 
Jeremiah  must  before  this  have  begun  to  be  disappointed  with 
Deuteronomy.  He  may  have  read  it  privately — this  perhaps  we 
may  argue  from  his  continued  allusions  to  it,  but  in  public  he 
confined  himself  to  reproducing  its  more  spiritual,  more  pro- 
phetic portions.  As  a  whole,  Deuteronomy  must  be  regarded 
as  thrust  somewhat  into  the  background,  until  at  length  the 
problem  which  it  sought  to  solve  was  resumed  at  the  close  of 
the  Exile,  and  a  fresh  combination  of  elements,  partly  historical, 
partly  sacerdotal,  partly  prophetic,  was  published  as  our  present 
Pentateuch  by  the  great  reformer  Ezra. 

But  though  a  kind  of  travel-weariness,  to  be  accounted  for 
on  moral  rather  than  on  physical  grounds,  may  have  attacked 
the  prophet,  there  was  one  place  not  far  from  the  capital  which 
a  natural  feeling  still  prompted  him  to  visit.  This  was  his 
native  town,  Anathoth  in  Benjamin,  which  had  been  inhabited 
for  c-enturies  by  many  priestly  families.  Jeremiah's  own  family 
was  not  one  of  the  poorest,  so  that  his  movements,  whenever 
he  went  there,  could  not  fail  to  draw  public  attention.  In  fact 
had  he  been  less  known,  he  might  have  been  more  honoured— 


t\ 


■'I 


lo8 


JEREMIAH. 


according  to  that  saying  of  our  Lord,  A  prophet  is  not  without 
honour  save  in  his  own  country^  and  among  his  own  kin,  and 
in  his  own  house  (Mark  i.  28).  Doubtless  he  had  often  ex- 
perienced this  on  previous  visits,  but  now— after  the  death  of 
Josiah — he  found  the  neglect  of  contempt  deepening  into  hatred. 
He  had  gone  to  his  native  town,  absorbed  in  his  message,  and 
as  unsuspicious  of  evil  (see  the  Revised  Version  of  Jer.  xi.  19) 
as  a  gentle  lamb  that  is  led  to  the  slaughter^  when  an  unpro- 
voked attempt  was  made  upon  his  life.  With  fair  speeches  (see 
Jer.  xii.  6),  unworthy  kinsmen  of  his  own  sought  to  draw  him 
into  an  ambush,  and  but  for  a  "special  providence"  his  career 
would  have  been  prematurely  cut  short.  And  Jehovah  gave  me 
knowledge  of  it  and  I  knew  it;  then  thou  shewedst  me  their 
doings  (Jer.  xi.  18,  R.V.).  "Then"  means  "when  I  was  in 
utter  unconsciousness."  No  one  can  think  of  excusing  such 
dastardly  conduct,  only  worthy  of  the  Bedouin  robbers  on  the 
other  side  of  Jerusalem  (Luke  x.  30,  comp.  Jer.  iii.  2) ;  but  can 
we  throw  any  light  upon  its  motives  ? 

History  requ'-es  that  we  should  do  equal  justice  to  men  who 
in  the  heat  of  conflict  may  have  misunderstood  each  other^ 
that  we  should  remember  the  complexity  and  the  almost 
tyrannical  power  of  circumstances,  and  try  and  think  ourselves 
back  into  the  position  of  both  parties.  In  our  present  study, 
it  may  help  us  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  word  of  a  true  prophet 
was  universally  believed  to  have  a  supernatural  efficacy.  Balak, 
for  instance,  sought  to  force  Balaam  to  curse  the  Israelites,  and 
Esau  was  mortally  offended  with  Jacob  for  coming  "  with 
subtilty "  and  "  taking  away  his  blessing "  (Gen.  xxvii.  35). 
Jeremiah  himself  held  the  same  view,  which  is  of  course 
only  a  primitive  thinker's  inference  from  the  Divine  origin  of 
prophecy.  But  who  is  the  true  prophet  and  which  word  of 
prophecy  has  a  Divine  origm?  There  were  always  many  com- 
peting prophets  at  Jerusalem,  and  till  the  value  of  their  oracles 
had  been  tested  by  history,  it  did  not  seem  possible  to  say 
which  of  them  were  true  prophets.  This  view  of  prophecy  is 
not  obscurely  expressed  in  Deut.  xviii.  22, — 

And  if  thou  say  in  thine  hearty  How  shall  we  know  the  word 
which  Jehovah  hath  not  spoken  f  When  a  prophet  speaketh  in 
the  name  of  fehovah^  if  the  thing  follow  not,  nor  come  to  pass^ 
that  is  the  thing  which  Jehovah  hath  not  spoken. 

It  is  not  by  any  means  a  complete  theory  of  prophecy  (it  is 


TH£  CLOUDS  RETURN  AFTER  THE  RAIN. 


109 


in  fact  qualified  by  Deut.  xiii.  1-3),  or  even  of  the  relation  of 
predictive  prophecy  to  fulfilment ;  but  it  is  one  which  naturally 
commended  itself  to  the  people,  and  which  prior  to  his  own  sad 
experience  our  prophet  himself  probably  held.'  Jeremiah  him- 
self cannot  have  Lad  a  high  place  as  yet  in  popular  esteem. 
For  the  people  appear  to  have  been  sceptical  as  to  the  claims 
of  a  prophet  of  woe  to  Divine  inspiration,  and  Jeremiah  had 
delivered  most  emphatic  predictions  of  national  disaster  which 
moreover  bad  not  as  yet  been  fulfilled.  During  the  panic 
caused  by  the  Scythians,  he  probably  was  for  a  time  encircled 
by  a  halo  of  sanctity ;  this  we  may  infer  from  the  fact  that  a 
brief  repentance  followed  upon  his  impassioned  exhortations. 
Bat  the  Scythians  returned  at  last  without  molesting  Judah,  and 
the  respect  for  Jeremiah's  prophesying  appears  to  have  vanished. 
Whenever  he  went  abroad,  he  had  to  listen  to  the  mocking 
inquiry,  Where  is  the  word  of  Jehovah  ?  ^ray,  let  it  come  to 
pass*  (Jer.  xvii.  15).  And  so  the  wheel  of  fortune  went  round  ; 
the  prophets  who  shouted  **  Peace,  peace "  (Jer.  vi.  14)  caught 
the  popular  ear,  and  Jeremiah  had  either  to  keep  silence  or  to 
take  up  the  new  vocation  of  expounder  of  the  law.  But  now  it 
must  have  seemed  to  the  Jews  as  if  those  old  predictions  of 
disaster,  which  had  hitherto,  so  to  speak,  floated  in  the  air 
(comp.  Isa.  ix.  8),  had  come  down  charged  with  a  first  instal- 
ment  of  disgrace  and  ruin.  The  smile  of  indifference  was 
exchanged  for  the  scowl  of  hatred.  Men  began  to  fear  Jere- 
miah, and  when  the  priests  at  Anathoth  heard  him  say  these 


■  In  Jer.  xzviiL  8,  9  the  prophet  qualifies  the  older  theory  thus  :— True 
prophets  have,  as  a  rule,  for  the  sins  of  the  people,  predicted  "  war,  and 
evil,  and  pestilence  "  ;  therefore  if  a  prophet  falls  into  the  new,  sweet  strain 
of  peace,  he  must  be  regarded  with  suspicion  until  the  event  proves  that  he 
has  been  truly  sent.  Comp.  Jer.  xiv.  13-15.  The  popular  argument,  if  I 
have  not  been  unjust  to  it,  was  exactly  the  opposite  Jehovah  was  Israel's 
God,  and  received  all  due  homage  from  Israel ;  consequently  Israel  (now 
virtually  synonymous  with  Judah)  shall  have  peace.  Once,  but  once  only, 
Jevemiah  seems  to  ascribe  the  current  prophecies  of  peace  to  Jehovah  as 
their  author  (Jer.  iv.  10,  comp.  i  Kings  xxii.  20-23).  This  may  perhaps 
be  due  to  the  as  yet  imperfect  distinction  between  true  and  false  prophets 
(contrast  Jer.  xiv.  13-15,  xxiii.  25,  Ezek.  xiii.  1-16).  But  the  passage  re- 
ferred to  admits  of  another  explanation  (see  my  commentary). 

*  Some  think,  however,  that  this  passage  refers  to  the  '.ime  when  Nebu- 
chadneszar  returned  in  haste  to  Babylon,  after  defeating  Neco,  to  secure 
his  crown. 


no 


JEREMIAH. 


111 


J'l' 

m 
m   I 


11   t' 


\H 


awful  words  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  IVAai  hatk  my  beloved  ia 
do  in  mine  house  f  will  vows  and  hcdlowed  flesh  take  thy 
wickedness  from  theet  wilt  thou  therefore  rejoice  t  (Jer.  xi.  15, 
Ewald), — ^they  began  to  feel  towards  him  as  their  fathers  would 
have  done  to  that  prophet  of  Kemdsh  who  said  to  Mesha,  king 
of  Moab  (so  the  ancient  stone  records), "  Go  destroy  Israel." 
Add  to  this  that  the  foe,  as  they  deemed  him,  of  the  common 
weal  was  a  kinsman  of  their  own,  and  we  have  a  sufficient  ex- 
cuse, not  indeed  for  their  treachery,  but  at  least  for  the  bitter 
hostility  with  which  the  prophet's  relations  regarded  him. 

Can  we  help  remarking  the  parallel  between  Jeremiah's  early 
history  and  that  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  Our  Lord,  like  the  prophet, 
found  His  truest  home-life — at  least,  after  His  ministry  had 
begun — in  Capernaum  and  Bethany,  and  not  in  Nazareth.  Of 
his  neighbours  in  that  village-community  it  is  true  in  the 
fullest  sense,  that  his  own  received  him  not  (John  i.  u).  They 
did  not  indeed  have  recourse  to  cunning  and  treachery,  but  led 
him  to  the  brow  of  the  hill  (well  known  and  dear  to  Jesus)  on 
which  their  city  was  built,  that  they  *night  hurl  him  down  the 
cliff  (Luke  iv.  29).  No  wonder  that  He  whose  heart  was  far 
more  loving  even  than  Jeremiah's  lavished  the  wealth  of  His 
affection  on  a  few,  and  especially  on  the  one  most  congenial  to 
Himself,  among  His  disciples  ;  of  this  one  et  least  it  could  not 
be  said, — 

//  is  not  an  enemy  that  revileth  me,  .  .  , 

{But)  my  companion  and  familiar  friend  (Psa.  Iv.  za,  Z4y. 

Both  our  Lord  and  His  prophetic  predecessor  had  a  longing 
for  true  friendship  which  was  very  imperfectly  satisfied.  In 
Jeremiah's  case  this  was  so  keen  as  to  be  oppressive,  and,  as  I 
have  ventured  to  point  out,  some  of  the  psalmists,  feeling  a 
special  interest  in  this  prophet,  and  having  formed  their  ideals 
partly  upon  his  life  and  character,  seem  to  have  expressed  his 
very  soul  more  strikingly  even  than  he  has  done  himself.  Es- 
pecially touching  is  the  new  sense  which  one  of  these  temple- 
poets  has  given  to  the  familiar  word  "  bereavement,"— 


m 


They  render  me  evil  for  good; 

Bereavement  hath  come  upon  my  soul  (Psa.  xxxv.  za,  De  Witt). 

This,  as  we  feel  at  once,  sounds  a  lower  depth  of  grief  than 
Jacob's  If  I  be  bereaved  of  my  children^  J  am  bereaved  (Gea 


THE  CLOUDS  RETURN  AFTER  THE  RAIN. 


Ill 


xliii.  14)1  or  than  the  following  sad  words  of  an  imaginative 
writer  of  our  own  day,— 

There*!  a  rival  bauld  wi*  young  and  auld, 

And  it's  faim  that  h?^  bereft  me ; 
For  the  surest  friends  are  the  auldest  friends^ 

And  the  maist  o'  mine  hae  left  me.' 

The  psalmist,  I  say,  who  thinks  himself  back  into  the  soul  of 
Jeremiah,  expresses  a  grief  more  bitter  than  that  of  the  patriarch 
or  of  the  sufferer  imagined  by  the  Scotch  poet — it  is  that  the 
oldest  friends  did  not  prove  the  curest — that  they  left  him  by  no 
natural  compulsion  but  through  treachery.  This  truly  is  a  grief 
which  can  "sap  the  mind" — which  did  sap  even  Jeremiah's 
mind,  not  completely  indeed,  for  he  knew  the  friend  which 
sticketh  closer  than  a  kinsman  (Prov.  xviii.  24),  but  enough  to 
breathe  into  him  thoughts  which  are  inconsistent  with  a  perfect 
inspiration.  But  thou^  Jehovah^  knowest  me;  thou  seest  me^ 
and  irirst  my  heart  toward  thee;  pull  them  out  like  sheep  for 
the  slaughter^  and  consecrate  them  (like  sacrificial  vxcixms)  for 
the  day  of  slaughter  (Jer.  xii.  3).  There  is  the  dross  of  human 
frailty  in  this— to  be  excused  as  we  excuse  the  bitterness  of  the 
prophet-like  poet  of  mediaeval  Christendom— to  be  excused,  not 
to  be  justified.  And  whenever  we  read  such  words  even  in  the 
Scriptures,  whether  it  be  in  Jeremiah  or  in  psalms  affected  only 
too  intimately  by  Jeremiah,  let  us  mentally  correct  them  in 
accordance  with  xHMviox^Sf  Father,  forgive  them  j  for  they  know 
not  what  they  do* 

In  the  conjecture  which  I  am  now  about  to  hazard  I  leap  over 
a  wide  space  of  time.  But  Jeremiah's  life  and  character  contain 
the  germ  of  so  much  that  is  Christian,  that  psychologically  the 
conjecture  seems  admissible  that  a  period  came  when  the  flame 
of  resentment  died  away  in  the  prophet's  breast— died  away 
quite  naturally,  because  nothing  remained  as  an  object  of 
resentment.  Is  it  not  so  with  ourselves  in  so  far  as  we  have 
the  Spirit  of  Christ  ?  Does  not  life  bring  to  each  of  us  in  a  too 
often  dull  and  dusty  pathway  moments  of  a  spiritual  quality  so 
rich  and  rare  that  our  past  troubles  appear  but  a  slight  bruising 
(as  St.  Paul  expresses  it),  and  as  working  out  for  us  in  its  initial 
stage  an  eternal  weight  of  glory  (2  Cor.  vii.  17)?     Such  a 

'  Mr.  Robert  Louis  Stevenson  ("  Underwoods"). 


113 


JBRBMIAH. 


M 


moment  was  given  to  the  Florentine  poet  when,  like  St.  Paul, 
he  was  caught  up  to  the  third  heaven  (a  Cor.  xii.  3),  and 
"smiled"  at  the  ''vile  semblance"  of  earth  and  its  miseries 
{ParadisOy  xxii.  133-135).  And  had  not  the  prophet  of  the  new 
covenant  similar  moments,  when,  like  him  who  in  Psa.  xvii. 
has  so  piercingly  complained  of  his  bitter  enemies,  he  could 
pass  into  the  world  of  God's  light  and  truth,  and  say, — 

As  for  me,  I  shall  behold  thy  face  in  righteousness  ; 

May  /  be  satisfied,  when  I  awake,  with  thine  image  (Psa.  xvii.  x^ 

The  Christian  proto-martyr  himself  used  language  only  less 
bitter  than  Jeremiah's  in  his  grand  final  invective  (Acts  vii. 
51-53),  but  his  rough  journey  to  Paradise  was  brightened  by 
the  far  holier  inspiration.  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge 
{v.  60).  And  must  not  Jeremiah,  amid  that  shower  of  cruel 
stones  which  legend  asserts  to  have  crushed  his  earthly 
tabernacle,  have  had  the  same  angelic  visitant,  and  so  resembled 
St.  Stephen,  not  only  (as  they  say)  in  the  form  of  his  martyr- 
dom, but  also  in  his  intuition  of  a  Divine  fairness  which  is  as 
far  above  natural  human  justice  as  heaven  is  above  the  earth — 
a  fairness  which  is  but  one  aspect  of  essential  love. 

Jeremiah,  as  idealized  by  the  noblest  of  his  disciples  or 
admirers,  was  free  from  any  morbid  tendency  to  vindictiveness. 
Among  the  psalms  of  the  Passion,  as  we  may  call  them,  for 
which  we  are  indebted  to  these  nameless  writers,  there  is  one 
which  stands  out  by  its  complete  freedom  from  the  sad  legacy 
of  imprecation — it  is  the  twenty-second.  This  is  not  to  be 
ascribed  to  ignorance  of  Jeremiah's  infirmity,  for  the  psalm 
alludes  (or  appears  to  allude)  to  a  verse  in  the  very  section 
which  we  have  been  considering.  Jeremiah  expresses  himself 
thus  (Jer.  xi.  20), — 

But,  0  Jehovah  Sabdoth^  that  judgest  righteously,  that  triest 
the  reins  and  the  heart,  let  me  see  thy  vengeance  upon  them  : 
for  upon  thee  do  I  roll  my  cause  (i.e., "  I  disburden  myself  by 
commending  my  cause  to  thee  ") ;  and  the  words  may,  I  think, 
be  in  the  psalmist's  mind,  when  he  represents  the  enemies  of 
that  ideal  Israelite,  who  is  not  unlike  Jeremiah,  but  soars  above 
him,  being  a  poetical  anticipation  of  Israel's  and  the  world's 
Saviour,  as  uttering  this  derisive  speech, — 

lie  has  rolled  (^kis  cause)  upon  Jehovah  ;  let  him  deliver  him  ; 
Let  him  rescue  him,  since  he  delighteth  in  him  (Psa.  xzU.  8). 


THE  CLOUDS  RETURN  AFTER  THE  RAIN. 


U3 


And  if  you  ask  me  how  the  disciple  could  rise  above  such  a 
master,  whose  works  were  to  him  the  oracles  of  truth,  I  reply 
that  because  his  eyes  were  more  fully  opened  by  the  lessons 
of  Providence.  And  this  may  suggest  a  comforting  thought 
for  ourselves,  preceded  as  we  are  by  so  many  great  teachers 
that  religious  truth  seems  (but  only  seems)  to  lie  before  us  full* 
orbed,— that  it  may  be  possible  for  us  to  divine  what  they 
would  say,  if  placed  where  we  now  s.and,  and  reverently  to 
correct  and  supplement  their  words,  just  as  the  ai'*hors  of 
Deuteronomy  did  to  Jeremiah,  and  the  later  psalmists  to 
Jeremiah.  God's  revelations — let  me  say  it  again — ?.re  never 
ended ;  the  elements  of  truth  may  be  as  old  ..  the  first 
"  covenant "  and  as  changeless  as  the  nature  of  man,  but  new 
combinations  of  those  elements,  both  in  Christian  ethics  and  in 
Christian  theology,  have  the  charm  and  novelty  of  fresh  com- 
munications  from  the  spirit-world.  When  he^  the  Spirii  oj 
inUh,  is  conui  he  will  guide  you  into  all  the  truth 


^ 


m 


\i  I 


CHAPTER  II. 

ON  THE  VERGE  OF  MARTYRDOM. 

Jeremiah's  sermon  in  the  temple— The  fate  of  Shiloh— The  propbet'i  trial 
and  acquittal  —The  martyrdom  of  Uriah. 

In  the  process  of  the  Church's  education,  of  which  Pentecost 
does  but  begin  the  second  or  rather  the  third  part,  Jeremiah's 
completed  life  forms  one  of  the  chief  waymarks.  But  as  yet 
one  half  of  it  still  lies  before  us.  It  is  a  story  of  bold  adven- 
ture and  of  faith  ;  of  heroic  endeavour  persistently  maintained, 
like  Christ's,  in  spite  of  failure  foreseen  ;  of  danger  encountered 
against  heaviest  odds  in  the  cause  of  true  religion  and,  in  a 
very  high  sense,  of  patriotism.  Jeremiah's  experience  at  his 
native  place  was  the  prelude  of  this  part  of  his  career.  Hence- 
forth, however,  like  our  Lord  at  the  close  of  His  ministry,  he 
concentrated  his  efforts  upon  Jerusalem.  There  too  he  was 
sometimes  in  danger  through  treachery.  This  is  his  own 
account  of  it.  For  I  have  heard  the  backbiting  of  many;  there 
is  terror  on  every  side.  Inform^  say  they^  and  let  us  inform 
against  hint  (Jer.  xx.  lo) ;  /.^.,  his  enemies,  including  some 
former  friends,  were  not  contented  with  injurious  reports  re- 
specting him,  but  encouraged  one  another  to  lay  an  information 
against  him  as  a  public  criminal  (comp.  Psa.  xxxi.  13).  And 
then  Jeremiah  continues  with  the  grand  but  too  passionate 
outburst, — 

But  fehovah  is  with  me  as  a  fierce  warrior;  therefore  shall 
mine  enemies  stumble  and  not  prevails  they  shall  be  greatly 
ashamed^  because  they  have  not  prospered^  with  an  everlasting 
reproach  that  shall  never  be  forgotten.  And  thoUy  fehovah 
Sabdoth,  that  triest  the  righteous^  that  seest  the  reins  and  the 
heart f  let  me  see  my  revenge  upon  them^for  upon  thee  do  I  roll 
my  cause  (Jer.  xx.  11,  12). 


ON  THE  VERGE  OF  MARTYRDOM. 


"5 


The  concluding  words  arc  repeated  with  slight  variations 
from  Jer.  xi.  20,  showing  that  the  prophet  himself  saw  the 
analogy  between  the  two  sets  of  circumstances.  He  had 
indeed  escaped  from  persecution  at  Anathoth,  but  only  to 
experience  a  worse  renewal  of  it  at  Jerusalem.  There  too 
he  carried  on  a  life  and  death  struggle,  though  as  a  rule  with 
less  ignoble  enemies.  Here  is  a  specimen  of  it.  The  incident 
to  which  I  shall  refer  arose  out  of  a  prophetic  discourse,  which 
we  fortunately  possess  in  t  yo  editions  (one  in  chap,  vii.,  and 
the  other  in  chap.  xxvi.).  It  appears  that  some  great  festival 
or  possibly  fast  had  brought  together  a  large  number  of  people 
from  all  quarters  to  the  temple,  and  that  Jeremiah  was  directed 
to  stand  between  the  inner  and  outer  court  and  address  them. 
One  wishes  that  this  among  other  fine  passages  of  the  Bible 
could  be  faithfully  re-translated  in  modern  English,  that  the 
reader  might  see  how  forcible  the  timid,  shrinking  Jeremiah 
can  become.  (Is  there  any  force  like  his  who  only  bursts  out 
now  and  then,  like  a  volcano,  because  the  fire  within  cannot  be 
restrained  ?  Comp.  Jer.  xx.  9.)  But  I  will  at  least  quote  here 
a  few  important  verses  in  the  best  version  which  suggests  itself. 

Put  not  your  trust  in  the  lying  ivords^  The  temple  ofjehovah^ 
the  temple  of  Jehovah^  the  temple  ofjehovah^  is  this  *  (vii.  4). 

What?  steal  and  murder  and  commit  adultery  and  swear 
falsely t  and  burn  incense  to  Baal,  and  go  after  other  gods  which 
ye  knew  not !  and  then  ye  come  and  stand  before  me  in  this 
house  upon  which  my  name  has  been  called,  and  think,  We  have 
escaped—ipnly)  to  repeat*  all  these  abominations  (vii.  9,  10). 

Do  we  not  seem  to  hear  these  self-deluded  men  (fanatical  in 
the  worship  of  Jehovah  in  spite  of  their  combination  of  this 
with  Baal-worship)  filling  the  air  with  their  shrill  cries,  and 
calling  upon  Jehovah  to  deliver  them,  because  "the  temple, 

*  Lit.,  are  these  [i.e.,  these  buildings).  The  Hebrew  suggests  more  than 
we  can  express  in  English — viz.,  that  the  sanctity  of  the  temple  proper  com- 
municated itself  to  all  the  various  buildings  connected  v\rith  it  (comp.  Matt 
xxiv.  x).  Similarly  in  Psa.  Lvviii.  35  a  translator  will  do  well  to  change 
"  thy  (w,/.,  his)  sanctuaries"  into  *'  thy  (or,  his)  sanctuary." 

"  The  Hebrew  has  simply  "  to  do  "  (or  "  practice  ").  Comp.  Psa.  Ix.  4, 
Thou  hatt  given  a  banner  to  them  that  fear  thee,  [only)  that  they  may  ^ee 
from  before  the  bow.  In  each  passage  a  striking  effect  is  produced  by 
representing  the  consequence  of  an  act  as  something  deliberately  intended. 
Some  indeed  suppose  that  in  the  psalm-passage  "  only*'  A^as  originally  a 
part  of  the  text. 


i  i| 


ii6 


JEREMIAH. 


;       f 


the  temple,  the  temple  is  this,"  as  if  the  iteration  of  the  phrast 
increased  its  efficacy,  while  others  give  equally  formal  thanks 
for  deliverance,  blindly  arguing  that,  because  no  invader  has 
yet  "cast  a  bank  against"  the  city  (Isa.  xxxvii.  33),  their  escape 
is  assured,  and  they  may  go  on  practising  all  their  old  im> 
moralities  ? 

Jeremiah  continues,  still  merging  his  own  personality  in  that 
of  his  Divine  Sender,  and  giving  Jehovah's  message, — 

A  den  of  robbers  then  has  this  house  whereupon  my  name  is 
called  become  in  your  eyes  t  /,  even  /,  have  surely  seen  it^  is 
JehovaKs  oracle. 

To  see  with  God  is  to  punibh.  The  lawless  rich  say  in  their 
hearts,  "  Thou  wilt  not  require  satisfaction."  So  one  of  the 
psalmists  tells  us,  adding, — 

Thou  hast  sun  it;  for  thou  lookest  on  mischief  and  vexattom, 
To  deal  out  (^vengeance)  with  thy  hand  (Psa.  x.  14). 

No  wonder  then  that  Jeremiah  next  announces  the  punishment 
of  those  who  thus  abuse  the  holy  name  of  religion.  How  he 
leads  up  to  this,  deserves  an  attentive  study  A  single  verse 
doubtless  condenses  a  fuller  and  more  descriptive  passage  of 
an  oral  prophecy.  Nearly  the  whole  of  the  period  of  the 
Judges — or  more  exactly,  between  Joshua's  latter  days  (Josh, 
xviii.  i)  and  Eli's  death  (i  Sam.  iv.  3),  the  ark  found  a  "resting- 
place  " — the  name  gfiven  to  the  Shiloh  temple  in  the  later 
tradition — in  the  famous  Ephraimitish  town  of  Shiloh.  It  is 
evident  that  a  mere  tent  would  not  have  sufficed  for  this  long 
period ;  there  must  have  been  some  kind  of  permanent  "house" 
or  tero'jle.  This  is  no  mere  presumption,  but  is  confirmed  by 
the  1?  guage  of  the  narrative  books— see  especially  i  Sam.  i.  9, 
where  Eli  is  represented  as  sitting  by  the  door-post  of  the  temple 
of  fehovah.  For  a  long  time  this  was  the  most  honoured 
sanctuary  of  the  Israelites  • — its  central  shrine,  in  a  different 
sense  from  that  in  which  Jerusalem  is  sometimes  called  the 
centre  of  worship,  for  its  existence  did  not  exclude  that  of 
nnmexoviS  b&mdth  or  " high  places."  But  its  "day  of  visitation' 
(Isa.  x.  3)  came  at  length.  When,  we  cannot  say  with  certainty, 
but  from  the  fact  that  one  of  the  psaUnists  introduces  the 
catastrophe  immediately  before  the  accession  of  David  to  the 

'  In  Jer.  xli.  5  "  SbUoh  "  should  be  "Salem  "  (Sept.  Cod.  Vat).   Cobik 

John  iii.  33. 


ON  THE  VERGE  OF  MARTYRDOM. 


n? 


that 


throne  (s  je  Psa.  Ixxviii.  59-72),  we  may  plausibly  infer  that  the 
temple  was  destroyed  during  the  Philistines'  oppression.*  How* 
ever  this  may  be,  it  is  probable  that  Jeremiah  found  in  the 
history  of  Samuel  and  Saul  current  in  his  own  time  a  full 
account  of  this  great  event."  I  suppose  that  he  also  found 
there  that  prophecy  of  Samuel,  which  seums  to  refer,  partly  at 
any  rate,  to  the  destruction  of  the  Shiloh-temple.  For  he 
announces  in  Jer.  xix.  3  that  Jehovah  will  bring  evil  upon  this 
place,  which  whosoever  hcarethy  his  ears  will  tingle^  evidently 
alluding  to  I  Sam.  iii.  11.  So  it  appears  that  his  "Book  of 
Samuel"  was  similar  in  some  respects  to  ours,  though  dissimilar 
in  others.  It  was  in  fact  a  complete  narrative,  and  was  doubt- 
less supplemented  by  a  living  popular  tradition.  Mothers  told 
their  children  of  the  fate  of  the  "  house  of  Jehovah  "  at  Shiloh, 
where  God  had  revealed  Himself  to  ancient  prophets  more 
distinctly  if  not  more  truly  than  to  those  of  their  own  time, 
and  the  blood  of  the  youthful  listeners  curdled  in  their  veins. 
That  " uncircumcised  Philistines"  should  have  laid  low  that 
most  holy  place,  seemed  too  strange  for  aught  but  the  fictions 
of  the  professional  story-teller.  The  supernatural  sanctions  of 
prophecy  guaranteed  it,  however,  and  more  than  one  of  the 
youths  who  heard  that  prophecy  (i  Sam.  iii.  11-14)  never  forgot 
it,  but  introduced  its  phraseology  into  works  of  their  own.' 

In  respect  for  the  memory  of  the  Shiloh-temple  and  horror 
at  its  end,  Jeremiah  and  his  fanatical  hearers  were  agreed.  As 
a  doom,  they  both  regarded  its  destruction  by  the  Philistines. 
The  latter,  I  make  no  doubt,  confirmed  themselves  in  blind 
self-righteousness  by  thinking  of  the  wickedness  which  must 
have  caused  this  awful  judgment.  "  God,  I  thank  thee  that  I 
am  not  as  other  men  " — heterodox  and  schismatical  ritualists, 
despisers  of  the  house  of  David  and  of  the  more  recent  but 


*  From  Judg.  xviii.  30,  31  it  may  at  first  seem  as  if  the  Shiloh  temple 
lasted  till  the  captivity  of  the  northern  tribes.  But  any  clear  head  will  see 
at  once  that  Judg.  xviii.  30  is  a  later  addition  (see  Ewald,  "History  of 
Israel,"  ii.  348  note  ;  Wellhausen's  edition  of  Bleek's  "Einleitung,"  p.  159). 

■  See  Wellhausen's  "  Prolegomena"  (Germ,  ed.),  p.  44,  and  his  edition  of 
Bleek's  "  Einleitung, "  §  103  (p.  aio) ;  also  Maybaum,  article  in  Steinthal's 
••Zeitschrift  fttr  Vttlkerpsychologie,"  1887,  pp.  S90-315  ;  Vatke,  "Biblische 
Tlieulogie,"  p.  318,  &c. ;  Graf's  note  on  Jer.  vii.  12  and  his  early  treatise 
"  De  Tctnplj)  Silonensi."    Comp.  also  Bertheau's  note  on  Judg.  x'/iii.  31. 

*  Another  allusion  to  this  prophecy  occurs  in  s  Kings  xxi.  12,  13. 


ii8 


JEREMIAH. 


1 1 

I  ! 


i'^ 


far  worthier  sanctuary,  which  has  proudly  withstood  Egyptlaiii 
Assyrian,  yes,  and  Israelitish  invaders.  This  must  have  been 
their  spoken  or  unspoken  monologue  with  Jehovah ;  and 
Jeremiah,  seeing  through  them,  virtually  answers  them  like  our 
Lord,  Except  ye  repent^  ye  shall  all  in  like  manner  {ifioiutt 
"  similarly  ")  perish  (Luke  xiii.  3,  R.V.).  But  he  has  his  own 
way  of  expressing  this.  By  a  most  effective  turn  in  the 
discourse,  he  bids  them  come  with  him  to  Shiloh,  and  scan  the 
desolate  ruins  of  that  once  glorious  shrine  —  glorious,  not 
perhaps  by  its  outward  magnificence,  but  by  the  accumulated 
veneration  of  centuries.  (Popular  respect  is  indeed  not  always 
given  to  the  symbols  or  the  sanctuaries  which  are  outwardly 
the  most  magnificent.)  There  was,  it  would  seem,  a  special 
appropriateness  in  the  time  when  this  invitation  was  given. 
For  we  cannot  suppose  that  so  sacred  a  place  as  Shiloh  had 
been  entirely  without  a  sanctuary  between  the  times  of  Saul 
and  Josiah.  There  must  have  been  an  altar  there,  and  at  least 
a  humble  "  chapel,"  though  none  that  could  bear  comparison 
with  the  king's  at  Bethel  (Amos  vii.  13).  But  Josiah,  not  many 
years  since,  had  broken  down  both  altar  and  "  chapel "  (as  he 
had  done  to  those  at  Bethel),  and  it  may  well  be  that  Jeremiah, 
on  that  visit  to  Shiloh*  which  (see  Part  L,  Chap.  V.)  I  ventured 
to  assume,  saw  (like  Dr.  Robinson ')  the  owls  fly  off  from  the 
desolate  spot.  At  any  rate,  all  knew  the  two  destructions  of 
the  sanctuary  of  Shiloh,  the  latter  of  which  was  but  a  re- 
affirmation of  the  original  doom  worked  out  by  the  abhorred 
Philistines.  And  now  for  the  argument  which  Jeremiah  builds 
upon  the  facts  of  past  and  present  history.  If  the  actual  re- 
ligion of  Judah,now  that  Josiah's  reforms  have  half  collapsed,  is 
in  its  idolatry  and  in  its  mechanical  formalism  so  similar  to  that 
of  its  northern  sister,  and  results  in  moral  practices  no  better 
than  those  for  which  Hosea  denounced  the  Israelites,  and  if 
the  most  ancient  temple  of  Jehovah  which  lay  within  the 
Israelitish  border  was  by  His  will  profaned  and  destroyed, 

■  I  know  of  course  that  "  Go  ye  now,"  &c  in  Jer.  vii.  za  may  be  merely 
a  rhetorical  phrase,  as  in  Amos  vi.  2.  But  it  may  equally  well  be  intended 
literally ;  and  if  so,  one  must  suppose  Jeremiah  to  have  set  the  example  in 
visiting  Shiloh. 

•  "  Biblical  Researches."  iii.  86.  To  this  eminent  American  traveller 
belongs  the  credit  of  having  discovered  the  true  site  of  Shiloh  (now  Seilun), 
which,  in  spite  of  Judg.  xxi.  19,  had  been  forgotten  since  St.  Jerome. 


:li   iJ  ! 


ON  THE  VERGE  OF  MARTYRDOM. 


119 


does  it  not  follow  that  the  same  fate  must  soon  overtake 
Jerusalem  and  its  sanctuary  ?  Both  temples  were  successively 
"  places  of  the  name  *  of  Jehovah  Sabdoth  "  (comp.  Jer.  vii.  12 
with  Isa.  xviii.  7,  Deut.  xii.  5) ;  how  could  one  be  punished  and 
the  other  escape  ? 

Thus  far  Jeremiah  has  addressed  himself  (see  Jer.  vii.  9)  to 
the  idolatrous  party,  who  do  indeed  worship  Jehovah,  but  do 
homage  to  "other  gods  beside"  Jehovah,  violating  the  first 
(or  second)  of  the  Ten  Words  of  God  (Exod.  xx.  3).  I  do  not 
say  that  the  analogy  between  the  Shiloh  and  the  Jerusalem 
temple  is  as  perfect  as  Jeremiah  represents.'  But  his  main  idea 
is  certainly  correct.  Throughout  the  history  of  Biblical  religion 
we  find  righteousness  described  as  essential  to  the  true  worship 
of  God.  The  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven  against  all 
irreligiousness  and  immorality  (Rom.  i.  18) ;  "  irreligiousness  " 
and  "  immorality "  describe  different  aspects  of  the  same  idea. 
No  religious  observances  can  "  wipe  out  the  old  score,"  and 
give  us  liberty  to  break  the  commandments  of  God.  And  now 
comes  the  turn  of  those  who  worship  Jehovah  alone  but  in  a 
purely  formal  way,  who  are  free  from  the  worst  moral  excesses 
of  the  others,  but  rest  their  hopes  for  Judah's  future  on  the  sacri 
fices  for  which  the  Deuteronomist  cared  so  little  and  Jeremiah 
still  less.  This  was  in  effect  what  he  said  to  them :  "  If  ye 
think  to  serve  God  by  a  multitude  of  sacrifices,  ye  do  greatly 
err.  Jehovah  did  indeed  allow  your  fathers  to  offer  Him  sacri- 
fices, but  He  gave  no  special  directions  concerning  them."  The 
Divine  silence  is  significant ;  it  means  that  nothing  has  an 
absolute  value  with  God  but  an  obedient  heart. 

I  spake  not  unto  your  fathers  nor  commanded  them^  when  I 
brought  them  out  of  the  landof  Egypt^  concerning  burnt  offerings 
or  sacrifices;  but  this  thing  commanded  I  them^  sayings  Obey  my 
voice,  and  I  will  be  to  you  a  Gody  and  ye  shall  be  to  me  a  people; 
and  walk  ye  in  all  the  ways  that  J  have  commanded  you  ^  that  it 
fnay  be  well  with  you  (Jer.  vii.  22,  23). 

Can  we  doubt  that  the  speaker  is  thinking  of  Deuteronomy, 

■  Guthe  has  remarked  that  the  expression  "the  name  of  Jehovah"  is 
sometimes  virtually  synonymous  with  the  ark.  Certainly  the  special  sanctity 
both  of  the  Shiloh  and  of  the  Jerusalem  temple  arose  out  of  the  presence 
of  the  ark  of  the  covenant 

*  Jeroboam  was  apparently  much  opposed  to  heathenism  proper  and  tb« 
iatroduction  of  new  gods  (Ewald,  "  History  of  Israel,"  iv.  27). 


f 


:1 


fJO 


JEREMIAH, 


one  favourite  phrase  of  which  he  instinctively  repeats,  and  more 
especially  of  that  sacred  Decalogue,  adopted  into  the  Deute* 
ronomic  tdrdh^  which  relates  entirely  to  moral  and  spiritua 
duties,  and  not  at  all  to  ritual  ?  As  for  your  sacrifices,  they 
would  have  been  poor  and  imperfect  things  at  the  best  (comp. 
Psa.  1.  12, 13),  and  yet  graciously  accepted,  as  the  expressions  of 
childlike  love.  But  this  is  a  nation  that  obeyeth  not  the  voice  Oj 
Jehovah  their  Cod  (ver.  28).  Therefore— put  your  burnt  offerings 
to  your  sacrifices^  and  eat  them  as  flesh  (ver.  21,  Ewald),  1*.^., 
throw  all  your  offerings  into  a  mass,  and  eat  them  at  your 
pleasure  ;  they  have  neither  any  inherent  sanctity  nor  any 
secondary  importance  from  the  character  of  the  offerers. 

And  what,  the  reader  may  ask,  was  the  fate  of  this  bold 
preacher  of  righteousness  ?  We  must  turn  to  the  parallel 
twenty-sixth  chapter  for  a  full  description  of  the  scene  which 
ensued.  The  narrative  is  most  effective  in  its  unadorned  sim- 
plicity ;  I  need  only  recall  its  leading  features.  The  priests,  the 
prophets,  and  the  people  surrounded  the  prophet  with  angry 
looks  and  words.  Like  St.  Stephen's  audience  long  afterwards, 
they  were  cut  to  the  hearty  and  gnashed  upon  him  with  their 
teeth  (Acts  ."'..  54).  Narrowly  indeed  did  he  escape  St. 
Stephen's  fate,  for  when  they  heard  those  echoing  words  of  re- 
lentless doom,  "This  temple  shall  become  like  Shiloh,"  they 
seized  him^  sayings  Thou  shalt  surely  die  (vers.  8,  9).  But  in 
the  nick  of  time  a  fresh  power  appeared  on  the  scene — the 
"  princes,"  or  high  officers  of  the  state,  who  came  up  from  their 
place  of  deliberation  in  the  "king's  house"  (v.  10,  comp.  xxxvi. 
12),  and  apparently  the  "elders,"  some  of  whom  had  doubtless 
taken  part  in  Josiah's  reformation.  Without  the  concurrence 
of  these,  the  legal  forms  would  not  have  been  duly  complied 
with  ;  the  prophet's  violent  death  would  have  been  a  mere 
assassination.  Jeremiah  in  dignified  terms  defended  his  own 
right  to  prophesy,  and  warned  the  people  of  the  consequences 
of  their  act.  Then  said  the  princes  and  all  the  people — the  crowd 
were  as  easily  led  by  their  superiors  now  as  at  Josiah's  reforma- 
tion— to  the  priests  and  to  the  prophets^  This  man  is  not  worthy 
to  die^  for  he  hath  spoken  unto  us  in  the  name  of  Jehovah  our 
God  (ver.  16).  "  Certain  of  the  elders  "  helped  this  view  of  the 
matter,  and  acted  a  truly  patriotic  part,  by  appealing  to  a  fact 
in  the  past  religious  history  of  Judah  (vers.  18, 19) ;  and  observe 
by  ♦he  way,  how  much  we  are  indebted  to  those  who  in  our  own 


!!l 


ON  THE  VERGE  OF  MARTYRDOM. 


121 


day  bring  to  light  half-forgotten  facts  in  religious  history.  The 
fact  about  Micah  (or,  as  he  is  here  called,  Micaiah,  see  v.  iS, 
R.V.)  was  not  unknown,  but  its  full  significance  had  not  as  yet 
been  seen.  Micah  may  be  called  the  moining-sta.-  of  the  evan- 
gelical movement  in  the  Jewish  Church.  He  saw  that  society 
needed  to  be  reorganized  on  a  new  moral  and  spiritual  basis, 
and  that  Zion  must  h^  ploughed  as  afieldy  and  Jerusalem  become 
heaps,  and  the  temple-mount  as  thicket-covered  heights*  (Mic. 
iii.  12).  This  implies  the  essential  reformation-truth  that  a 
temple  is  consecrated  not  merely  by  containing  sacramental 
symbols  of  the  Divine  presence,  but  through  being  resorted  to 
by  holy  worshippers.  I  do  not  say  that  no  prophetic  writer  e* 
pressed  this  between  Micah  and  Jeremiah  ;  for  however  Isaiah 
may  vary  his  descriptions  of  Israel's  future,  he  never  fails  to 
Insist  on  the  necessity  of  a  judgment  and  the  indispensableness 
of  a  righteous  remnant.  But  Isaiah's  truly  evangelical  teaching 
had  to  some  extent  been  counteracted  by  the  Deuteronomic 
compromise  between  Law  and  Gospel.  And  at  any  rate  our 
prophet  was  the  first  to  proclaim  this  great  truth  so  distinctly  as 
to  strike  even  the  dullest  listener. 

The  glory  of  being  the  evangelical  proto-martyr  was,  however, 
reserved  for  another  prophet,  named  Uriah,  son  of  Shemaiah,  of 
the  "  town  of  the  copses  "  (or  thickets),  Kiryath-Yearim.*     In 

*  The  word  for  "heights"  (bdmdih)  only  has  this  general  meaning  in 
poetic  style  (so  again  in  Mic.  i.  12) ;  in  prose,  it  has  the  specialized  sense  of 
"  high  places."  That  rendered  "thicket-covered"  (the  Hebrew  has  "heights 
of  thicket")  is  explained  in  the  next  note.  The  Jerusalem  hills  were 
anciently  more  overgrown  with  copse  than  they  are  now  (see  above).  Hence 
we  are  not  surprised  that  Judah  the  Maccabee  and  his  brethren  found 
(agreeably  to  the  wide-reaching  prophecy  of  Micah)  the  sanctuary  desolate, 
and  the  altar  profaned,  and  the  gates  burned  down,  and  shrubs  growing  in 
the  court  as  in  a  forest  or  in  one  of  the  mountains  (x  Mace.  iv.  38). 

•  The  ancient  "copse-town"  has  now  become  a  "grape-town"  (Karyet 
el-'Enab),  if  Robinson's  identification  be  accepted.  Conder's  proposal  to 
place  Kiryath-Yearim  on  the  site  of  the  copse-enclosed  ruin  caJled  'Erma, 
"on  the  south  side  of  the  great  ravine  which  is  the  head  of  the  valley  of 
Sorek,"  is  in  some  respects  plausible,  though  a  philological  connexion 
names  does  not  exist.  "Yearim"  may  however  be  explained,  after  the 
Arabic  use  of  wa'r,  as  "  rough,  impracticable  tracts  of  country"  (comp. 
Isa.  x».  13,  where  Wetzstein  gives  this  sense  to  ya'ar,  the  singular  of 
yearim).  Thomson  remarks  that  there  are  very  rough  "wa'rs"  on  every 
side  almost  of  Karyet  el-'Enab,  and  that  the  ark  would  have  had  a  rough 
road  from  this  village  to  Jerusalem ;  Conder,  that  the  dense  thickets  of 


\i 


133 


JEREMIAH. 


spite  of  the  traditional  connexion  of  his  native  city  with  the  most 
sacred  symbol  of  his  religion  (see  i  Sam.  vi.  21-vii.  2),  Uriah, 
possibly  a  disciple  and  doubtless  a  friend  of  Jeremiah,  had  the 
insight  to  discern  the  superstition  and  immorality  which  degraded 
the  national  religion,  and  the  imminent  danger  which  beset  his 
country.  He  preached  the  truth,  and  paid  the  forfeit  with  his 
life.  That  he  at  first  fled  into  Egypt,  is  not  to  be  interpreted  as 
an  act  of  cowardice.  Surely  an  inner  voice  had  said  to  him« 
"  Wait ;  it  may  be  that  Israel's  God  has  more  work  yet  for 
thee  as  well  as  for  Jeremiah  to  do."  The  latter,  at  any  rate,  was 
saved  for  the  Master's  future  use  by  the  interposition  of  the 
"  princes,"  and  especially  of  Ahikam  *  (one  of  the  deputation 
sent  to  Huldah  the  prophetess,  according  to  2  Kings  xxii.  14), 
whose  friendly  interest  in  Jeremiah  may  remind  us  of  that  of  the 
Duke  of  Lancaster  in  John  Wycliife. 

See  from  the  narrative  which  we  have  had  before  us  the  good 
results  of  the  prophet's  self-communings  after  his  trouble  at 
Anathoth.  "  Peace  was  not  made  for  earth,  nor  rest  for  thee  " — 
such  was  now  his  conclusion,  like  that  of  •'  New  Self  "  in  Hurrell 
Froude'spoem."  He  had  fought  his  inner  fight,  not  unaided  by 
the  sense  of  spirit-borne  warnings  and  expostulations^  such  as 
these  which  he  has  ventured  to  clothe  in  words, — 

If  thou  hast  run  with  the  footmen^  and  they  have  wearied 
thee,  then  how  canst  thou  contend  with  horses  f  and  though  in  a 
land  of  peace  thou  art  secure^yet  how  wilt  thou  do  in  the  pride 
of  Jordan  f  (Jer.  xii.  5,  R.V.) 

The  "  footmen  "  and  the  "  land  of  peace  "  are  Jeremiah's  rela- 
tives and  the  town  of  Anathoth,  where,  but  for  secret  machina- 
tions, he  would  have  dwelt  in  peace.  The  "  horses  "  and  the 
"  pride  of  Jordan  "  are  the  mighty  multitude  and  the  city  where 
enemies  beset  the  faithful  prophet,  who  can  only  be  compared' 
to  the  fierce  lions  in  the  jungle  of  tamarisks  on  Jordan's  banks. 
Looking  back  on  his  recent  bitter  experience,  Jeremiah — that  is, 

copses  must  once  have  been  more  widely  spread  than  they  are  now.  I 
cannot  discuss  the  geographical  or  philological  question;,  further  here.  (Sea 
preceding  note. ) 

■  One  of  Ahikam 's  sons,  Geraariah,  lent  Baruch  his  official  room  for  hia 
recitation  of  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xxxvi,  10) ;  anot'ier  son, 
Gedaliah,  .showed  himself  Jeremiah's  friend,  and  politically  his  disciple^ 
when  governor  of  Jndah  under  Nebuchadrezzar  (Jer.  xi.  5-10). 

•  "  Lyra  Apostolica."  Ixxix.,  "  Old  Self  and  New  Self." 


ON  THE  VERGE  OF  MARTYRDOM. 


123 


his  "Old  Self '*— complains  of  his  sad  lot ;  but  looking  forward 
to  the  trials  which  must,  if  he  follows  his  conscience,  be  1  store 
for  him,  he  checks  his  weak  complainings,  and  comforts  himself 
with  the  inerrancy  of  the  Divine  justice.  These  thoughts  were 
to  his  mind  the  direct  suggestions  of  his  ever-present  Lord ; 
hence  their  power — hence  the  wonderful  transformation  which 
ensued  (strictly  speaking,  indeed,  it  had  begun  earlier,  see 
Part  I.,  Chap.  Ill,;,  end)  in  the  prophet's  character.  At  Anathoth, 
in  a  comparatively  small  danger,  he  gave  way  to  impatient 
murmurs ;  at  Jerusalem,  amidst  an  infuriated  mob  led  by  priests 
and  prophets,  he  is  as  calm  as  if  he  were  amidst  friends.  Human 
nature  was  the  same  then  as  it  is  now.  Are  not  many  of  us  too 
ready  to  lose  our  self-command  under  small  trials?  And  is 
there  not  still  but  one  unfailing  source  of  calmness — the  presence 
of  God  in  the  soul? 

Thus,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Christian,  Jeremiah's 
message  comes  ultimately  to  this — that  the  lowly  and  believing 
heart  is  God's  favourite  temple,  and  the  only  one  which  has  the 
promise  of  permanence.  Full  often  has  the  course  of  history 
taught  us  the  same  truth.  No  need  to  point  to  Furness  or  to 
Melrose.    **  Go  ye  now  to  Shiloh  "  ;  or  rather,  ' 

**  Go  down  with  yonder  abject  few, 

In  caftan  green  or  dim  white  veil, 
Who  hurry  by  to  raise  anew 

Their  feeble  voice  of  endless  wail. 
Before  Moriab's  stones  of  might 
Scant  beards  are  torn,  old  eyelids  stream 

With  many  a  sad,  unhelpful  tear ; 
Man's  weeping  and  earth's  ruin  seem 

To  find  their  common  centre  here."  ■ 

But,  thank  God !  there  are  more  cheerful  preachers  than  those 
of  the  Jewish  "wailing-place."  Elevating  indeed  must  have 
been  the  sight  of  those  five  thousand  French  Protestants  who 
gathered  together  the  other  day  in  the  mountains  of  the 
Cevennes  •  to  commemorate  beneath  the  summer  sky  the  stolen 
religious  meetings  of  their  forefathers.  The  gathering  may 
indeed  have  partaken  of  ihe  nature  of  a  fast  as  well  as  of  a 


«  St.  John  Tyrwhitt,  "  Poems,"  "  The  Jews'  Wailing  Place." 
*  Alluding  to  an  impressive  ceremony  recorded  in  the  newspapers,  August, 
X887.    This  passage  is  retained  from  a  cathedral  sermon. 


124 


JEREMIAH. 


festival ;  for  where  are  the  moral  representatives  of  the  heroic 
though  far  from  faultless  Cevencls  ? 

*•  Cold  mountains  and  the  midnight  air 
Witnessed  the  fervour  of  tAeir  prayer," 

who  died  even  as  they  lived — the  spiritual  children  of  psalmists 
and  prophets.  Yet  we  may  be  grateful  to  those  who,  m  cele- 
brating the  centenary  of  Louis  XVI.'s  edict  of  toleration,  and 
praising  the  new  virtue  of  religious  tolerance,  could  not  and  did 
not  withhold  their  homage  to  the  more  fundamental  qualities 
which  distinguished  their  ancestors.  By  this  commemoration, 
the  patriarchs  and  martyrs  of  the  Cevennes,  "  being  dead,  yet 
speak,"  and  hand  on  the  lesson  afresh  to  later  ages  that  "  God  is 
spirit "  (John  i.  24,  R.V.  margin),  and  that  the  fairest  contribu- 
tions of  art  and  of  historic  tradition  to  the  outward  forms  of 
worship  cannot  compensate  for  the  absence  of  spiritual  re- 
ligion, of  an  open  Bible,  and  of  hearts  where  Conscience  reigniu 


CHAPTER  !II. 

KEEP  THE  MUNITION,  WATCH  THE  WAY  J 

P  dgress  of  Neco — Accession  of  Jehoahaz,  and  soon  after  of  Jehoiakin'  — 
Fall  of  Nineveh — Neco's  defeat  by  Nebuchadrezzar — Dread  of  Babylon 
at  Jerusalem— Jeremiah's  new  peace  of  mind— His  ^ -ophecy  on  Egypt, 
&c. 

So  Jeremiah  was  snatched  from  his  enemies — delivered  from 
that  most  terrifying  of  all  dangers — the  fury  of  a  fanatical  mob.' 
He  was  acquitted  ;  but  his  position  was  not  thereby  materially 
improved.  The  elders  who  so  opportunely  interposed  may 
or  may  not  ■  have  been  hearty  believers  in  his  special  Divine 
mission  ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  new  king  was  not,  that  the 
bulk  of  the  priests  and  of  the  prophets  was  not,  and  that  the 
people  had  only  ?.  temporary  access  of  superstitious  awe  at  the 
troublesome  preacher.  It  was  indeed  morally  impossible  that 
any  but  an  elect  few  could  tolerate  such  a  violent  reversal  of  re- 
ceived ideas.  But  how  came  the  prophet  to  venture  on  such  a 
step  ?  What  was  it  that  so  far  altered  the  nature  of  this  sensitive 
man  that  he  could  thus  court  opposition,  and  provoke  the  spirit 
of  fanaticism  ?  Was  it  as  a  forlorn  hope  that  he  took  up  his 
station  that  morning  in  front  of  the  assembled  pilgrims  and 
devotees  ?  Was  it  the  inspiration  of  despair  at  the  strong  back- 
ward current  which  had  set  in  both  in  morality  and  in  religion  ? 
I  reply  that  it  was  not  this,  though  Jerrmiah's  "  Old  Self"  may 
well  have  troubled  hU  "  New  Self"  with  despairing  suggestions. 

«  May  I  at  least  illustrate  this  by  the  vivid  description  of  the  mob  at 
Charing  Cross  in  "John  Inglesant,"  chap,  xiv.,  and  the  remark  of  the  officer 
o  Inglesant,  "  Y"i  stood  that  very  well.  I  would  rather  mount  the  dead- 
iest  breach  than  face  such  %  sight  as  that." 

•  In  their  favour  it  may  be  urged  that  they  treat  Jeremiah's  case  as  entirely 
parallel  to  Micah's.  But  the  low  tone  of  their  concluding  words- -TVlttJ 
should  we  commit  great  evil  against  our  own  souls — may  by  some  be  taken 
to  prove  that  they  were  merely  afraid  of  tie  probable  dangerous  conse- 
quences of  putting  Jeremiah  to  death. 


126 


JEREMIAH. 


|(     I 


Listen  to  this— a  favourite  passage  with  our  own  sensitive  poet 
Cowper, — 

0  that  I  had  in  the  wilderness  a  lodging-place  of  way  faring 
men,  that  I  might  leave  my  people  and  go  from  them  /  (Jer.  ix. 

2,  A. v.). 

And  then  the  prophet  proceeds  to  describe  the  wickedness  of 
the  times  in  terms  which  remind  us  partly  of  his  experience  at 
Anathoth, — 

Take  ye  heed  every  one  of  his  neighbour,  and  trust  ye  not  in 
any  kinsman^ ;  for  every  kinsman  useth  trickery^  and  every 
neighbour  goeth  about  with  slander  (ver.  4). 

Yes,  Jeremiah's  inner  voices  did  not  always  appeal  to  his 
higher  nature.  And  one  of  the  psalmists  who,  as  we  have  seen, 
thought  themselves  back  into  the  soul  of  this  prophet,  was  so 
moved  by  this  passage  that  he  amplified  it  in  lyric  verse* — 

Fear  and  trembling  have  come  upon  mt. 
And  horror  overwhelmeth  me  ; 
And  I  say.  Oh  that  I  had  wings  like  a  dovt  I 
Tnen  would  I  fly  away,  and  be  at  rest: 
Lo,  then  woild  I  wander  far  oj^, 
I  would  lodge  in  the  wilderness  ; 
I  would  haste  me  to  my  safe  retreat 
From  the  stormy  wind  and  the  tempest. 

(Psa.  Iv.  s-8,  De  Witt.) 

I  am  sure  that  those  who  agree  with  me  on  the  subject  of  the 
porticoes  of  psalm-palaces  (seep.  105)  will  enjoy  this  psalm  more 
as  the  work  of  a  writer  circumstanced  like  Jeiemiah  and  there- 
fore drawn  in  an  especial  manner  towards  his  life  and  character. 
The  imitation  is  lovely,  but  the  original  passage  is  more  vigorous. 
One  feels  that  the  speaker  will  not  long  remain  in  despondency. 
That  he  should  be  cast  down,  is  only  natural ;  the  prophetic  call 
was  not  designed  to  kill  nature,  but  to  control  and  elevate  it. 
And  if,  inielligibly  enough,  Jeremiah  had  his  occasional  moods 
of  deep  sadness,  he  had  also,  as  I  will  presently  show,  his  moods 
of  lofty  satisfaction  at  the  providential  ordering  of  affairs  in 
Western  Asia.  These  alternations  are,  in  my  opinion,  clearly 
traceable  in  the   changing  tones   of  the  prophetic  strain,  to 

■  I  adopt  the  translation  "  kinsman,"  to  bring  out  the  chronological  con- 
nexion of  chap.  ix.  with  xi.  i8-xii.  6  (see  especially  the  last  verse  in  this 
vection).  One  might  of  course  render  or  paraphrase  "  fellow-Israelite."  Th« 
Hebrew  has  •''brother." 


KEliP  1  HE  MUNITION,  WATCH  THE  WAY  1 


127 


account  for  which  let  us  resume  for  a  few  minutes  the  thread 
of  history. 

Josiah  had  thrown  himself,  as  it  were,  before  Neco's  chariot- 
wheels,  and  been  crushed — to  Israel  a  piteous  tragedy,  but  a 
matter  of  supreme  indifference  to  an  Egyptian  conqueror. 
Straight  on  went  the  proud  Pharaoh  towards  the  Euphrates,  only 
halting  before  the  renowned  city  of  Kadesh,*  now  easier  to  take 
than  of  yore,  when  first  one  and  then  another  Thothmes 
penetrated  to  the  north  of  Palestine.  He  then  continued  his 
triumphal  march,  none  venturing  to  check  him,  till  once  more 
after  the  lapse  of  nine  centuries  Egyptian  garrisons  looked 
down  on  that  historic  stream,  and  Neco  could  then  return  to 
secure  his  hold  on  Syria  and  Palestine.  Three  months  after  the 
battle  of  Megiddo  he  paused  at  Israel's  ideal  northern  frontier 
(Num.  xxxiv.  ii,  Ezek.  vi.  14'),  where,  by  the  walls  of  Riblah, 
not  many  miles  from  the  already  captured  city  Kadesh,  in  a 
"  deep  and  lazy  stream  "  the  Orontes  flows,  to  receive  the  sub- 
mission of  the  petty  Syrian  princes.  There  he  learned  that  the 
Jews  had  lost  no  time  in  providing  themselves  with  a  new  king 
— an  act  of  rebellion,  for  which  he  summoned  Jehoahaz  (to 
whom  I  shall  return  later)  to  answer.    At  Riblah  the  unhappy 


'  This  statement  depends  on  the  interpretation  of  a  famous  passage  in 
Herodotus  (ii.  159).  Neco  is  there  said  to  have  defeated  the  Syrians  (i.e. 
the  Jews)  at  Magdolus,  and  then  taken  Cadytis,  "a  large  city  of  Syria." 
Magdolus  is  obviously  an  error  for  Megiddo,  which  Herodotus  confounded 
with  tba  Magdolus  Egyptian  frontier-city  Migdol  or  Magdol,  now  Tell  el- 
Hir  (Jer.  xliv.  i).  Cadytis  in  Herod,  iii.  5  means  Gaza,  which  is  Katatu  or 
Kazatu  in  the  Egyptian,  Khazitu  in  the  Assyrian  inscriptions.  The  con- 
quest of  Gaza  would,  however,  certainly  not  have  been  mentioned  just  after 
the  battle  of  Megiddo,  whereas  that  of  Kadesh  or  Kodshu  (the  ancient 
capital  of  the  Hittites)  would  be  quite  in  order.  In  the  accounts  of  the 
Syrian  campaigns  of  Thothmes  I.  and  III.  the  names  Magidi  (Megiddo)  and 
Kodshu  (Kadesh)  constantly  occur  together.  The  Syrian  chiefs,  after  being 
defeated  at  Magidi,  generally  retreated  to  Kodshu,  and  a  second  engage- 
ment took  place  beneath  its  walls.  Is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
Herodotus  once  more  made  a  confusion  of  names  (Katatu  and  Kadshu, 
or  Kodshu)  ?  The  site  of  Kadesh  has  been  identified  by  Conder  with  Tell 
Neby  Mendeh  (Laodicaea)  ;  see  "Twenty-one  Years'  Work  in  the  Holy 
Land,"  pp.  152-156.  M.  Maspero,  the  Egyptologist,  however,  is  not  fully 
convinced. 

»  Here  we  should  evidently  correct  "Diblath"  (or,  "  Diblah  )  into 
"  Riblah  "  (see  "  Variorum  Bible  ").  The  mistake  of  the  Massoretic  text  is 
repeated  by  the  Septuagint  in  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  a,  Jer.  Iii.  9,  27. 


■.  '1 


128 


JEREMllkH. 


king  was  deposed,  and  an  elder  brother,'  known  to  us  as 
Jehoiakim,  set  up  oy  Neco  in  his  stead.  Probably  it  did  not 
take  the  Jews  long  to  accustom  themselves  to  the  new  state 
of  things.  A  powerful  philo-Egyptian  party  had  long  existed 
in  Judah,  and  if  a  national  choice  had  to  be  made,  the  Jews 
could  not  help  preferring  an  Egyptian  overlord  to  an  Assyrian  ; 
the  Assyrians  were  in  fact  the  most  cruel  of  all  the  conquering 
nations  of  antiquity.  But  soon  another  great  piece  of  news 
startled  the  Jewish  world.  The  Medes  had  long  since  given 
much  trouble  to  the  Assyrians.  Once  already  indeed  they  had 
attacked  Nineveh  (Herod  i.  103),  and  but  for  the  invasion  of 
Media  by  the  Scythians  would  doubtless  have  taken  it.  Upon 
the  withdrawal  of  the  Scythians,  they  returned  to  the  assault, 
and  the  Assyrian  capital  fell  before  the  combined  forces  of 
Media  and  Babylonia.  This  was  probably  in  the  year  607.  The 
remains  of  his  hastily  built  and  unfinished  palace  testify  to  the 
disquiet  of  the  closing  years  of  the  last  Assyrian  king  (Assur- 
^tilil^ni). 

It  is  an  immense  loss  that  we  have  no  historical  account  of  the 
details  of  this  great  event.  The  cuneiform  records  as  yet  disco- 
vered—even those  which  belong  to  the  reign  of  Nabopolassar — 
are  silent  respecting  them,  while  the  classical  writers  confounded 
this  final  catastrophe  with  the  temporary  humiliation  of  Assyria 
in  788.  But  if  a  historian  may  be  called  a  "  backward-looking 
prophet,"  a  prophet  may  surely  be  regarded  in  some  degree  as  a 
"  forward-looking  historian."  For  the  feelings  of  the  Jews  at 
any  rate,  as  well  as  for  the  fact  of  the  inevitableness  of 
Nineveh's  ruin,  we  may  refer  to  Nahum  the  Elkoshite,  who 
about  660,'  when  Assurbanipal  was  still  at  the  height  of  his 
glory,  predicts  the  destruction  of  the  lion's  lair.  It  was  the 
cruel  punishment  of  Thebes  (No-Amon)  for  its  defection  to  the 
Ethiopians  which  opened  the  eyes  of  Nahum  to  the  necessity 

«  According  to  i  Chron.  iii.  15,  Josiah  had  four  sons— Johanan, 
Jehoiakim,  Zedekiah,  Shallum.  Shallum  is  supposed  to  be  the  name  of 
Jehoahaz  before  he  became  king.  Though  placed  fourth,  he  was  older  than 
Mattaniah  or  Zedekiah  (comp.  3  Kings  xxiii.  31,  xxiv.  18).  On  the  changes 
of  names  I  will  speak  later. 

»  The  Assyrian  inscriptions  enable  us  to  fix  the  date  of  Nahum  in  the 
most  positive  manner.  They  prove  that  the  capture  of  Thebes,  referred  to 
by  the  prophet,  took  place  about  663.  Now  as  the  event  was  still  fresh  in 
Nahum's  recollection,  he  can  hardly  have  written  later  than  660  (Schrader, 
"  Die  Keiliiischriften  und  das  Alte  Testament,"  ed.  i,  p.  290). 


KEEP  THE  MUNITION,  WATCH  THE  WAY  1 


129 


of  Nineveh's  fall.  History  confirms  not  only  the  accuracy  oi 
his  anticipation,  but  the  principle  upon  which  it  is  based.  The 
Roman  empire  lasted,  because  it  was  based  not  merely  on  force, 
but  on  that  unwritten  covenant  which  Virgil  has  described  in 
imperishable  lines.  The  Assyrian  fell,  because  the  conquered 
provinces  were  only  kept  under  by  the  iron  heel  of  tyranny.  I 
quote  a  passage  in  vhich,  with  a  keen  sense  of  retributive 
justice,  the  prophet  argues  from  the  cruelty  of  the  Assyrian 
tyrants  to  the  downfall  of  their  capital  : — 

And  all  they  that  see  thee  shall  flee  from  thee  and  say,  De- 
stroyed is  Nineveh  I  who  will  condole  with  her  f  Whence  shall 
I  seek  comforters  for  thee  f  Art  thou  {O  Nineveh  I )  better 
than  No-of-Amon,  which  was  enthroned  by  the  Nile-streams^ 
surrounded  by  water;  which  was  a  fortress  of  the  sea,  whose 
wall  was  water  f*  Ethiopia  was  her  strength,  and  Egypt,  and 
there  was  no  endj  Put  and  the  Lubim  were  thy  helpers.  She 
however  went  as  captive  into  exile  j  her  children  also  were 
dashed  in  pieces  at  every  street-corner,  and  for  her  honoured 
ones  men  cast  lots,  and  all  her  great  ones  were  bound  in  fetters. 
Thou  also  shall  be  drunken^  thou  shall  faint  away  j  thou  also 
must  seek  a  refuge  because  of  an  enemy  (Nah.  iii.  7-1 1). 

That  there  is  no  exaggeration  in  the  atrocities  here  ascribed 
to  Assyria,  a  glance  at  the  monuments  or  at  the  translated 
inscriptions  is  enough  to  prove.  Well  might  Nahum,  as  a 
representative  of  the  petty  states  of  Asia,  draw  breath  in  the 
striking  words  which  conclude  his  prophecy, — 

All  that  hear  the  rumour  of  thee  clap  the  hands  over  thee  ; 
For  upon  whom  hath  not  thy  wickedness  passed  continually  f 

(Chap.  iii.  19  ;  comp.  the  delicate  touch 
in  the  last  line  of  chap.  ii.  13.) 

The  burden  of  this  grand  triumphant  strain  was  taken  up  by 
Jeremiah's  contemporary  Zephaniah,  but  with  less  ardour  of 
passion.  The  fall  of  Assyria  is  to  this  prophet  merely  a  detail 
in  the  general  judgment  of  the  nations,  and  the  last  feature  in 
his  description — "  every  one  that  passeth  by  her  shall  hiss  and 
wag  his  .^a^dT— contains  a  reminiscence  of  the  vigorous  distich 
just  now  quoted  from  Nahum.  We  need  not  be  surprised  at 
this,  for  not  only  was  Zephaniah  a  less  original  and  effective 
writer  than  Nahum,  but  he  lived  at  a  time  when  Nineveh  was 

'  I  point  mayfm  with  the  Septuagint,  the  Peshitto,  and  the  Vulgate. 

10 


130 


JEREMIAH. 


no  longer  dangerous  to  the  populations  of  Palestine.  Whethet 
spoken  with  more  passion  or  with  less,  however,  the  maledic' 
tions  of  the  prophets  were  accomplished  to  the  letter.  Xenophon 
and  his  Ten  Thousand  passed  by  the  ruins  of  Nineveh  in  401, 
and  mistook  them  for  the  remains  of  Median  cities  laid  waste  by 
the  Persians  :  the  very  name  of  Nineveh  had  been  forgotten.  In 
the  lapse  of  years  the  ruins  themselves  became  unrecognizable, 
and  it  is  only  in  our  own  day  that  they  have  been  discovered 
beneath  their  clothing  of  sand. 

So  colossal  an  event  could  not  but  involve  grave  consequences 
—  it  was  destined  to  change  the  face  of  Asia.  Not  indeed 
all  at  once  ;  for  the  next  two  years  Syria  and  Palestine  con- 
tinued to  be  attached  to  the  empire  of  Egypt.  But  about 
605  Nabopolassar  (more  correctly,  Nabft-pal-ugur,  i,e.y  "  Nebo, 
protect  the  son "  I),  originally  a  general  sent  out  by  the 
former  of  Assurbanipal's  two  successors  to  quell  a  Chaldaean 
revolt,*  but  too  ambitious  to  resist  the  temptation  of  seizing  the 
Babylonian  crown,  and  now  the  conqueror  of  Assyria,  sent  his 
son  to  recover  the  southern  provinces  of  the  empire  from 
Pharaoh-Neco  :— it  is  the  prince  who  bears  the  fatal  name 
Nebuchadrezzar"  (more  strictly,  Nabft-kudur-u^ur,  i.e.^  "  Nebo, 
protect  the  crown").  Neco  too  set  forth  once  more  on  the  way 
to  Syria,  and  halted  near  Carchemish  '  on  the  Euphrates.  In 
olden  times  this  had  been  a  great  city  as  the  capital  of  the 
Hittites,  but  its  commercial  prosperity  dated  from  its  conquest 
by  Sargon  in  717.  To  the  Assyrio-Babylonian  king,  the  pos- 
session of  this  point  was  of  the  utmost  consequence,  for  it 
secured  the  passage  of  the  River  and  the  high  road  from  Meso- 
potamia to  Palestine.  With  a  well-appointed  army  Pharaoh- 
Neco  encountered  his  young  rival ;  but — oh  the  strange  sight  to 
all  who  knew  Egyptian  warriors ! — the  heroes  wert  beatenin pieces 
(by  the  heavy  Babylonian  maces),  they  fled  away  ^  and  looked  not 
hack;  or  rather,  the  svjift  could  not  fiee^  nor  the  heroes  escape 


•  Tide  rightly  regards  this  as  the  kernel  of  the  strange  account  given  by 
Abydenus.  It  is  possible,  however,  that  Nabopolassar  was  not  merely  a 
general  sent  on  a  special  mission,  but  viceroy  of  Babylon.  Assurbanipal  had 
suppressed  the  viceroyalty  ;  the  increasing  peril  of  the  empire  may  havo 
induced  his  successor  to  restore  it 

*  So  given  in  Jer.  xxi.  3,  7  and  twenty-four  other  passages. 

3  Identified  by  George  Smith,  in  his  last  fatal  journey,  with  JertblAi  01 
Jorabts,  OD  the  right  bank  of  the  Euphrates. 


*^ 


KEEP  THE  MUNITION,  WATCH  THE  WAY  I 


I3» 


(Jer.  xlvi.  5. 6),  because  those  swifter  than  the  leopard  (Hab.  i.  8; 
were  upon  them.  Nothing  but  the  death  of  the  old  Babylonian 
monarch  arrested  his  son's  triumphant  progress.  Fearing  to  be 
absent  from  his  capital,  the  young  king  committed  the  charge  of 
his  garrisons  to  his  generals,  and,  with  characteristic  prompti- 
tude, dashed  homeward  with  a  small  escort  the  shortest  way 
across  the  Arabian  desert.* 

And  now,  what  was  the  tone  of  mind  in  Judah  during  these 
eventful  years  ?  The  reiterated  references  in  Jeremiah  to  the 
"  Peace,  peace  "  of  the  flattering  or  false  prophets  "  sufficiently 
show  that,  as  in  Isdah's  time,  "  they  which  should  lead  had 
caused  Israel  to  err,  and  destroyed  the  way  of  his  paths  "  (Isa. 
iii.  12).  Putting  aside  a  few  individuals,  the  nation  (<>.,  all  those 
classes  of  the  nation  which  counted)  neither  had  nor  wished  to  have 
any  true  conception  of  its  position.  Neither  had,  nor  wished  to 
have,  I  say  designedly.  For  a  long  time  past,  prophecy  had 
been  a  source  of  national  danger.  It  had  always  been  a  regular 
?nd  tolerably  lucrative  profession  ;  but  whereas  in  a  simpler 
age,  the  prophets  had  "divined  for  money"  and  yet  been  con- 
scientious, in  the  luxuriousness  of  the  later  regal  period  they 
had  more  and  more  laid  themselves  out  for  gain  apart  from  con- 
science (see  Mic.  iii.  11).  Their  sole  object  was  to  please,  and 
the  way  to  please  was  to  keep  up  all  agreeable  illusions.  Listen 
first  to  Isaiah  and  then  to  Jeremiah. 

For  it  is  a  disobedient  people,  lyin^r  sons,  sons  that  will  not  hear 
the  direction  of  Jehovah,  who  say  to  the  seers.  Ye  shall  not  see 
[truly],  and  to  the  prophets,  Ye  shall  not  prophesy  unto  us  right 
things;  speak  unto  us  smooth  things^  prophesy  illusions  (Isa. 
XXX.  9,  lo). 

The  prophets  prophesy  falsely,  and  the  priests  rule  at  their 
beck,  and  my  people  love  to  have  it  so  (Jer.  v.  31). 

It  may  be  remarked  by  some  reader  of  Wellhausen  that  the 
Ui'ter  passage  does  not  apr'y  to  the  period  which  followed  the 
Reformation.  For  the  puoiic  recognition  of  the  Deuteronomic 
Scripture  must  have  greatly  increased  the  authority  of  the 
priests,  under  whose  care  (comp.  Deut.  xxxi.  25,  26)  it  was 
placed.  The  prophet  who  was  a  joint-author  of  Deuteronomy 
gave  up  much  for  himself  and  his  order  that  he  might  gain 

•  Berossus, /ra^ffi.  11,  in  Josephus,  "  Ant."  x.  11. 

•  Jer.  vi.  14,  viii.  11,  comp.  iv.  10  (all  these  passages  occur  in  context* 
referring  partly  to  the  Scythians,  but  partly  no  doubt  to  the  Chaldaeans) 


f 'I 


;.  ! 


t3t 


JEREMIAH. 


more  for  the  community.  This  is  true,  from  whatever  source 
the  reader's  insight  may  be  derived.  But  we  must  remember 
that  the  Deuteronomic  tordh  was  suffering  a  temporary  eclipse. 
The  old  conditions  of  things  were  partly  restored.  Unity  was 
lost,  and  the  excited  people  must  now  more  than  ever  have 
turned  to  the  prophets  for  comfort.  They  at  least  could  offer 
what  no  mere  priests  and  no  mere  book  could  pretend  to  offer— 
a  direct  revelation  from  the  Deity  on  matters  of  present  moment. 
And  so  both  statesmen  and  priests  had  to  bend  low  before  the 
prophets,  or  at  least  before  the  prophetic  order.  But  the  prophets 
(among  whom  I  of  course  do  not  now  include  Jeremiah)  could 
not  afford  to  follow  the  inner  voice.  They  were  led  by  love  of 
gain  and  of  influence  to  ascribe  a  Divine  authority  to  the  blind 
instincts  of  the  people,  which  received  a  fresh  glamour  from 
being  expressed  in  the  rhetorical  style  of  prophecy.  These  in- 
stincts were  at  present  those  of  self-complacent  vanity.  Three 
times  over  had  God  spoken  in  history,  and  loudly  enough,  one 
might  think,  to  awaken  all  who  had  the  power  to  reflect,  but 
each  of  these  unexpected  events  had  but  lulled  the  Jews  in  a 
deeper  security.  Again  and  again,  one  may  suppose,  Jerusalem 
gave  itself  up  to  the  wild  rejoicings  of  which  Eastern  nations 
alone  are  capable.  Nineveh  had  fallen  ;  Neco  had  been  de- 
feated ;  and  now  the  prince  who  wielded  the  dreaded  power  of 
Babylon,  had  been  turned  back,  as  it  seemed,  by  some  super- 
natural hand. 

Jeremiah  at  least  saw  more  clearly.  Not  to  him  could  those 
words  of  Jesus  be  applied.  Ye  can  discern  the  face  of  the  sky  ^  but 
ye  cannot  discern  the  signs  of  the  times  (Matt.  xvi.  3).  He  saw 
once  more  the  seething  caldron  ready  to  precipitate  a  flood  of 
ruin  over  his  dear  country  (Jer.  i.  13,  14).  You  might  think 
perhaps  that  the  vision  would  strike  him  dumb  with  terror,  as 
he  thought  of  the  fierce  warriors  streaming  in  from  the  north 
under  the  greatest  general  of  the  Semitic  East  before  Hannibal. 
Listen  to  Habakkuk,  who  lived  at  Jerusalem  about  this  time,* 
and  see  how  awful  the  prospect  really  was  : — 

Look  ye  among  the  nations  and  behold  j  amaze  y  ourselves ^  be 
ye  amazed!  for  a  deed  doeth  he  in  your  days  which  ye  believe 
not  when  narrated. — For  behold  I  raise  up  the  Chaldaans,  the 
tough  and  the  restless  nation,  which  goeth  through  the  breadth 
tf  the  earthy  to  possess  dwellings  ivhich  are  not  his.  Frightful 
•  That  is,  after  the  battle  of  Carchemish. 


KEEP  THE  MUNITION,  WATCH  THE  WAY  I. 


■33 


mnd  terrible  is  if,  from  himself  his  justice  and  his  majesty  goeth 
forth;  and  swifter  than  leopards  are  his  horses,  and  fiercer  than 
evening  wolves  his  chargers  leap,  and  his  horsemen  go  far  away, 
fly  as  an  eagle  hasteth  to  gorging;  each  cometh  to  do  wrong,  the 
endeavour  of  their  faces  is  towards  assault,  so  that  he  collecteth 
prisoners  like  the  dust;  and  at  kings  he  mocketh,  and  princes 
are  to  him  a  laughingstock,  and  he  laugheth  at  every  stronghold^ 
and  throweth  up  dust  and  taketh  it. — But  he  exceeded  in  daring 
and  transgressed,  and—becometh  guilty  :  this  his  strength  be' 
cometh  his  God^  (Hab.  i.  5-1 1,  Ewald). 

The  rapidity  of  the  rise  of  the  new  conquering  power  had 
evidently  impressed  Habakkuk.  He  compares  the  Chaldaean 
horses  to  leopards— meaning  perhaps  the  chetah,  or  hunting 
leopard,  still  found  in  Palestine,  "  the  rush  of  which  on  its  prey 
is  the  most  rapid  of  possible  movements ;  ^  and  he  gives  the 
former  the  superiority  in  swiftness  (comp.  Dan.  vii.  6).  The 
thought  of  what  is  coming  paralyzes  him,  and  all  the  more  be- 
cause this  physical  energy  of  the  Chaldaeans  is  combined  with  a 
fierce  and  deflant  assertion  of  their  own  standard  of  justice  and 
their  own  all-surpassing  majesty.  But,  as  Ewald  says,  the  pro- 
phet, commenting  on  the  revelation  which  he  has  uttered,  gives 
a  hint  of  comfort  to  the  true  believer.  The  Chaldaean  idolizes 
that  strength  which  he  owes  to  Another,  and  denies  the  true  God. 
Then,  in  the  next  section,  his  tone  becomes  more  pleading.  The 
death  of  Israel  as  a  nation  would  be  equivalent  to  the  death  of 
Jehovah.  There  have  no  doubt  been  divine  deaths.  Where  is 
the  god  of  Hamath  and  the  god  of  Arpad  {Issl,  xxxvii.  13)?  But 
— ar'  thou  not  from  everlasting,  Yahvi  my  Godt  my  Holy 
One,  thou  canst  not  die  /  .  ,  ,  Thou  of  too  pure  eyes  to  behold 
iniquity,  and  who  to  look  at  evil  art  not  able,  wherefore  lookest 
thou  upon  the  treacherous,  holdest  thy  peace  when  the  unjust 
devoureth  the  just,  and  makest  men  as  fish  of  the  sea,  as  the 
worm  that  hath  no  ruler  I  (Hab.  i.  12-14).  Thus  Habakkuk 
like  Jeremiah  (xii.  i)  is  troubled  by  the  incompleteness  of  the 
Divine  retribution.  Judah,  by  comparison  with  Chaldaea,  is 
righteous  (Ewald,  for  greater  vigour,  shortens  the  literal  render- 
ing, which  is,  "the  unrighteous  devoureth  him  who  is  more 
righteous  than  he  ") ;  as  for  the  covetous  invader,  his  inmost 
soul  is  puffed  up,  it  is  not  upright  (or  perhaps,  humble;  lit., 

*  I  have  here  followed  Mr.  J.  Frederick  Smith's  accurate  translation. 

•  Tristram,  "  The  Land  of  Israel,"  p.  495. 


Iti 


k 


' 


'34 


JEREMIAR. 


"  level "),  iut  tht  righteous  shall  live  by  his  faithfulmss  ■  (ii.  4). 
Such  is  the  sure  hope  which  pierces  the  clouds  of  trouble 
Righteousness  must  outlive  unrighteousness  ;  and  when  we  add 
to  this  the  faith  in  a  God  who  only  hath  immortality  (i  Tim. 
vi.  16),  what  can  the  prophet  need  more  to  r«;vive  his  courage? 
Alas  that  Habakkuk  should  have  so  far  miscalculated  the 
moral  value  of  the  two  nations — Chaldaea  and  Israel,  and  seen 
so  dimly  into  the  abyss  of  the  Divine  purposes  1  Like  Jeremiah, 
he  "stood  in  the  council  of  Jehovah"  (Jer.  xxiii.  18) ;  why  did 
he  not  "  see  and  hear  "  better  ?  He  did  indeed  "  see  "  that  God 
loves  and  will  have  righteousness  ;  but  he  did  not  see  the  moral 
and  religious  need  of  a  complete  subversion  of  the  existing 
order  of  things.  He  saw  that  "law"  {tdr&K) — even  the  incom- 
parable D»»uteronomic  law — was  benumbed  (Hab.  i.  4) ;  but  he  did 
not  see  that  bright  spiritual  landscape  beyond  the  sea  of  afflic- 
tion (Zech.  X.  11),  in  which  rises  the  mount  of  beatitudes  and 
the  second  and  better  covenant.  His  fate  reminds  us  somewhat 
of  Josiah's.  He  trusted  God  implicitly,  and  his  trust  was  not 
rewarded  in  the  way  that  he  expected.  But  he  was  probably 
spared  Josiah's  premature  end  ;  he  may  have  lived  to  take  to 
his  heart  of  hearts  the  purer  hopes  and  loftier  aspirations  of 
Jeremiah. 

Or  listen  to  the  latter  prophet's  expressions  of  horror  in  one 
of  his  gloomier  moods, — 

Behold^  as  clouds  he  cometh  up^  and  as  the  whirlwind  are  his 
chariots;  swifter  than  eagles  are  his  horses.  Woe  unto  us! 
for  we  are  spoiled  (iv.  13). 

O  daughter  of  my  people^  gird  thee  with  sackcloth^  and  roll 
thee  in  ashes  j  make  thee  an  only  son^s  mourning,  most  bitter 
lamentation;  for  suddenly  cometh  the  spoiler  upon  us  (vi.  26). 

Oh  that  my  head  were  waters,  and  mine  eyes  a  fountain  oj 
tearst  that  I  might  weep  day  and  night  for  the  slain  of  the 
daughter  of  my  people  (ix.  i). 

The  last  of  these  passages  is  surely  a  direct  expression  of 
Cassandra-like  horror  at  the  fate  which  impends  over  Judah.  In 
some  places  the  prophet  may  have  husbanded  his  talent,  and 
adapted  old  prophecies  respecting  the  Scythians  to  the  new  and 

•  "Faithfulness"  should  be  interpreted  as  in  Jer.  v.  i,  where  it  is 
synonymously  parallel  to  "right."  There  is  an  implied  antithesis  to  the 
unfaithfulness  of  the  Chaldsean  invader,  who  acknowledges  not  God  nor 
the  Divine  law. 


KEEP  THE  MUNITION,  WATCH  THE  WAY  I 


135 


of 


greater  Chaldaean  crisis  ;  but  surely  not  here.  But  the  fact  that 
there  are  so  few  direct  expressions  of  grief  confirms  the  view 
that  the  sensitive  Jeremiah  was  lifted  up  by  a  wonderful  inspira- 
tion to  a  height  like  that  which  Christian  poets  love  to  describe 
— a  height  from  which  past  troubles  appear  to  be  swallowed 
up  in  light.  As  soon  as  the  prophet  gained  his  first  clear  intui- 
tion of  the  future,  what,  think  you,  was  his  mood  ?  The  answer 
is  given  in  chaps,  xlvi.-xlix.,  a  group  of  prophecies  on  the 
foreign  nations  (A.V.'s  '*  Gentiles  "  is  surely  a  most  inappro- 
priate rendering),  written  at  various  times  during  the  period 
beginning  606-605.  Her^ ,  more  than  anywhere  else,  is  revealed 
Jeremiah's  conviction  t^  at  prophetic  oracles  are,  not  less  than 
wind  and  storm,  messengers  of  God,  fulfilling  His  word,  in 
destruction  not  less  than  in  reproduction,  and  through  this  faith 
he  obtains  a  profound  repose  for  his  throbbing  heart.  His  own 
consciousness  becomes  more  than  evei  absorbed  in  the  divine 
— at  least,  in  that  aspect  of  the  divine  which  at  this  moment 
forces  itself  upon  him  ;  and  so  he  shuts  up  his  heart's  best  trea- 
sure of  love  and  pity  (like  Jehovah  Himself,  according  to  Isa. 
Ixiii.  15,  R.V.),  and  rejoices,  not  unlike  the  prophet-poet  Dante, 
in  the  just  judgments  of  God.  Does  not  this  suggest  to  us  the 
true  explanation  of  that  calmness  which  surprised  us  in  Jere- 
miah not  long  ago,  and  which  contrasts  so  strikingly  with  his 
irritation  at  Anathoth?  The  prophet's  intuition  of  the  future 
was  acquiring  greater  definiteness  ;  and  tired  of  his  ceaseless 
anxiety,  he  was  relieved  to  know  that  the  end  was  so  near.  It 
is  somewhat  as  when  a  man  is  told  by  his  physician  that  he  has 
not  many  months  to  live  ;  the  certainty  has  been  known  to  bring 
to  such  an  one  a  new,  strange  peace  of  mind.  The  fret  and 
fever  of  life  vanishes  in  a  moment ;  troubles  and  disappoint- 
ments assume  another  aspect,  and  he  even  welcomes  weak- 
ness and  pain  as  the  harbingers  of  a  change  which,  if  God  be 
faithful,  cannot  be  for  the  worse. 

In  the  opening  oracle  of  the  series  referred  to,  Jeremiah's 
new  peace  of  mind  appears  to  be  intensified  into  a  kind  of  stern 
joy.  I  suppose  that  on  this  one^  occasion  at  least  his  words 
may  have  been  echoed  by  the  majority  of  his  countrymen,  who 
only  remembered  that  it  was  by  Neco  that  the  nation's  darling 
had  been  slain,  and  saw  not  that  the  Pharaoh's  defeat  did  but 
prepare  the  way  for  a  more  severe  master.  Jeremiah's  rejoicing, 
however,  was  not  like  that  of  his  light-hearted  people.      He 


136 


JEREMIAH. 


may  indeed  have  hated  Egypt  only  less  than  Assyria,  and 
on  much  the  same  grounds  as  his  countrymen,  but  '^^his  is  not 
the  whole  secret  of  his  triumph  at  its  humiliation.  He  knew 
but  too  well  the  blow  that  was  preparing  from  Jehovah's,  not 
Nebo's,  hammer  * — Nebuchadrezzar.  And  this  was  to  him  the 
source  of  an  inward  transformation  as  remarkable  as  any  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  Divine  rebuke  in  Jer.  xii.  5  was  never 
t  inquired  again.  The  prophet's  sensitive  nature  was  recast,  and 
though  traces  of  the  old  infirmity  remained,  yet,  whenever 
there  was  a  need  for  action,  he  was  calm,  adventurous,  and 
resourceful. 

I  wish  I  had  space  to  enter  at  length  into  the  truly  remark- 
able prophecy  on  Egypt,  which  should  be  read  by  all  who  would 
estimate  the  poetic  capacity  of  Jeremiah.  It  falls  into  two 
parts,  which  cannot  have  been  composed  at  quite  the  same 
time.  In  the  former  (vers.  3-12)  the  point  of  time  assumed  is 
i.nmediately  before  the  battle  of  Carchemish.  It  is  a  grand 
triumphal  ode,  describing  this  fatal  blow  as  a  Divine  judgment 
from  which  Egypt  cannot  possibly  recover.  T'  e  latter  (vers. 
i4-r5 ')  is  a  prediction  in  highly  poetic  imagery  of  Nebuchad- 
"ozziir's  conquest  of  Egypt.'  The  date  is  not  to  be  deduced 
wifh  precision  from  the  contents,  but  it  is  safest  to  refer  both 
this  and  the  following  prophecies  to  the  anxious  time  of  Nebu- 
chadrezzar's  first  Palestinian  campaign.  How  striking  is  the 
picture  which  in  the  former  passage  unrolls  itself  before  the 
prophet's  imagination  !  First,  the  setting  fcrth  of  the  splendid 
Egyptian  army ;  thim  the  strange  contrast— knights  sanspeur 
et  sans  reproche  perishing  miserably,  their  shields  (to  quote 
from  an  earlier  poet)  being  "vilely  cast  away"  (or  perhaps, 
"defiled''— 2  Sam.  i.  21).    Well  for  mankind,  thinks  our  pro* 


■  Jer.  !.  33,  Haw  is  the  hammer  of  ihe  whole  earth  tut  asunder  and 
broheit  I  The  passage  represents  Jeremiah's  view  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  even 
if  it  be  not  written  by  him. 

*  I  make  this  prophecy  close  at  v.  36  and  not  at  v.  38,  because  the  two 
concluding  verses  of  the  chapter  are  evidently  inserted  at  a  later  time  from 
XXX.  10,  II,  where  they  cohere  far  Better  with  the  convex;  than  they  do  here. 

3  Egypt  certainly  had  more  claims  upon  Jeremiah's  sympathy  than  Moab. 
Had  the  prophet  foreseen  the  hospitality  accorded  by  Egypt  to  the  Jews  at 
a  somewhat  later  time,  and  the  important  consequences  which  were  to  flow 
from  this,  he  would  perhaps  have  devoted  more  than  half  averse  to  Egypt's 
happier  future. 


KEEP  THE  MUNinON,  WATCH  THE  WAY  I 


137 


phet,  that  it  was  so  I  for  the  march  of  an  Egyptian  army  is 
like  nothing  >o  much  as  a  monstrous  devastating  river.  But 
the  day  of  vengeance  is  come.  Gilead's  costly  balm,  so 
prized  in  Egypt  (Gen.  xliii.  11, 1.  2),  has  no  healing  virtue  for 
Egypt's  wound. 

"To  pluck  up  and  to  break  down  and  to  destroy"  (Jer.  i.  10) 
was  no  small  part  of  Jeremiah's  ministry  at  this  time.  We  can- 
not however  pause  beside  each  canvas  in  this  prophetic  por- 
trait-gallery.  Suffice  it  to  mention  that  what  may  seem  repellent 
is  mitigated  by  bright  glimpses  of  the  future.  When  the  sword 
has  done  its  work,  it  will  be  sheathed  (Jer.  xlvii.  6) ;  Moab, 
Ammon,  and  Elam  shall  not  always  be  exiled  from  the  eternal 
providence  (Wisd.  xvii.  2),  and  even  exhausted  Egypt  shall 
again  support  a  teeming  population.  But  what  shall  we  say  of 
chap.  XXV.,  which  gives  the  substance  of  chaps,  xlvi.-xlix.  in 
a  more  fearfully  impressive  form?  Well,  even  here  a  bright 
prospect  opens  in  vers.  12-14  to  the  nations  (including  Judah) 
which  have  drunk  the  winv^  of  God's  fury.  It  does  not  indeed 
commend  itself  to  a  Christian  reader,  but  to  Jeremiah's  con- 
temporarie"^  it  was  only  too  congenial  a  picture  (see  vers. 
12-14).  "Fearfully  impressive"  is,  I  think,  not  too  strong 
an  epithet  to  use  of  this  chapter  as  a  whole.  It  deserves  an 
attentive  study  on  various  grounds,  historical,  exegetical,  and 
critical.  As  a  survey  of  the  Eastern  world,  in  which  Judah 
occupies  no  more  than  its  due  place,  it  reminds  us  of  the  pro- 
phecy of  Zephaniah  (see  p.  33) ;  as  a  list  of  the  "nations  round 
about"  (vers.  19-26),  it  has  even  a  geographical  value;  and 
from  the  peculiar  arrangement  of  this  chapter  in  the  Septuagint 
interrupted  as  it  is  after  ver.  13  by  the  insertion  of  xlix.  34-39, 
xlvi.,  xlvii.,  xlix.  7-22,  1-6,  28-33,  23-27,  xlviii.)  it  presents  the 
student  with  a  curious  critical  problem.  How  much  the  early 
students  of  the  Scriptures  were  interested  in  this  chapter,  is 
shcu^n  by  several  important  inierpolations  j  *  evidently  they 


»  Thu?  in  V.  9  we  should  probably  omit  all  between  "saith  Jehovah" 
and  "and  will  bring  them  "  ;  in  v.  12,  "the  king  of  Babylon  and,"  and 
also  "and  the  land  of  the  Chaldaeans"  ;  and  in  v.  a6,  "and  the  king  of 
Sheshach  shall  drink  after  them"  (most  inappropriate,  at  the  end  of  a  list 
of  the  nations  to  be  punished  by  Babylon  ;  a  little  more  elaborateness  waj 
surely  required  in  the  description  of  Babylon's  retribution).  See,  however, 
Ewald's  note  on  v,  9  in  his  "  Prophets,"  vol.  i:.,  where  a  brave  attempt 
ti  made  to  rtsfend  the  Massoretic  text  (only  changing  W  into  'etk). 


1 

i  ^^ 

fi 
■I 

■  ■■! 

ral' 

I  \  ' 

M 

1    ■■; 

i    '  'i    '■ 

li;:  ' 

m  il 

1  ''^ 

\ 

it  vr  ; 


i; 


5         ! 


1 1 


I3« 


JEREMIAH. 


had  brooded  deeply  over  it.  Very  different  must  have  been 
the  effect  of  this  chapter  on  most  of  those  who  originally  heard 
its  substance.  But  was  it  ever  publicly  delivered  ?  the  reader 
may  ask ;  for  sometimes  the  denunciations  of  prophets  would 
seem  to  have  been  elabora:ed  in  private  for  the  reading  of  dis* 
ciples  or  future  generations.  My  own  opinion  is  that  it  was, 
and  that  it  is  the  prophecy  which  Jeremiah  dictated  to  Baruch 
according  to  Jer.  xxxvi.  I  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  the 
roll  referred  to  in  that  striking  chapter  contained  the  substance 
of  all  Jeremiah's  prophecies  from  the  beginning  of  his  ministry. 
A  complete  reproduction  of  the  prophecies  would  not  have 
suited  Jeremiah's  purpose,  and  Jer.  xxxvi.  29  expressly  states 
that  the  obnoxious  roll  contained  one  great  and  terrible  de< 
claration — the  very  same  which  we  find  in  Jer.  xxv.  But  I  am 
in  danger  of  anticipating,  and  must  now  prepare  to  resume  the 
^readofthe  narrative. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


THBRE  B£  GODS  MANY,  LORDS  MANY. 


m 


Jeremiah's  verdict  upon  the  later  kings— Nebuchadrezzar  crossek  the  border 
—Duel  between  Jeremiah  and  Jehoiakino. 

It  may  have  struck  some  readers  that  in  hastening  on  to  the 
great  catastrophe  which  was  to  revolutionize  Asia,  I  passed 
somewhat  lightly  over  the  fate  of  Josiah's  successor.  Let  me 
now  correct  this  involuntary  injustice.  In  2  Kings  xxiii.  33,  34 
we  are  simply  told  that  Neco  bound  Jehoahaz  at  Hamath,  and 
then  took  him  away  to  Egypt,  where  he  died  in  captivity.  His 
melancholy  end  deeply  moved  his  contemporaries,  not,  as  that 
of  another  "  king  for  a  hundred  days  "  has  moved  our  genera- 
tion, from  its  moral  significance,  but  at  least  from  its  pathetic 
suggestions. 

Weep  ye  not  for  the  dead  (said  the  tender-hearted  man  beneath 
one  of  the  prophets  of  that  day),  neither  bemoan  him:  but  weep 
sore  for  him  that  is  gone  away;  for  he  shall  return  no  more,  nor 
see  his  native  country.  For  thus  saith  Jehovah  touching  Shallum 
the  son  ofjosiah,  king  of  Judah^  which  reigned  instead  of  Josiah 
hisfather^  which  went  forth  out  of  this  place  :  He  shall  not  re- 
turn thither  any  more;  but  in  the  place  whither  they  have  led 
him  captive  there  shall  he  die^  and  he  shall  see  this  land  no  more 
(Jer.  xxii.  10-12). 

Jeremiah  feels  and  writes  in  complete  sympathy  with  his 
people ;  and  so,  it  seems  to  me,  does  his  younger  contem- 
porary Ezekiel,  who  perhaps  (as  Ewald  suggests)  has  adopted 
one  of  the  popular  elegies  upon  Shallum  or  Jehoahaz  in  Ezek. 
xix.  1-4.  "A  young  lion  of  royal  strain,  caught  untimely,  and 
chained  and  carried  away  captive, — this  was  how  the  people  of 


140 


JEREMIAH. 


Israel  conceived  of  Shallum."  •  Sooner  would  they  have  chosen 
for  him  the  tragic  but  not  dishonourable  end  of  his  father,  than 
that  he  should  be  dragged  with  the  rope  of  a  captive  to  a  foreign 
land,  and  be  buried  in  the  "  house  of  bondage "  far  from  the 
tombs  of  his  ancestors.  The  words  of  Huldah  to  Josiah,  Thou 
shall  be  gathered  to  thy  ^rave  in  peace  (2  Kings  xxii.  20),  hardly 
seem  an  exaggeration  in  the  light  of  coming  events.  Of  the 
character  of  Jehoahaz,  Jeremiah  generously  says  nothing  ;  even 
if  the  report  of  this  king's  wickedness  (see  p.  104)  be  well- 
founded,  yet  he  can  hardly  have  done  much  good  or  evil  in  his 
short  reign  of  three  months.  Of  his  elder  brother  Jehoiakim, 
however,  the  prophet  speaks  with  great  positiveness  and  pa- 
triotic resentment,  drawing  a  pointed  contrast  between  him 
and  his  noble  father  (Jer.  xxii.  13-17).  The  same  kingly  virtues 
which  were  so  conspicuous  in  David  (2  Sam.  viii.  15^)  adorned 
Josiah  ;  covetousness  and  oppression  and  judicial  murders  dis- 
graced the  rule  of  Jehoiakim. 

Woe  unto  him  that  buildeth  his  house  by  unrighteousness^  and 
his  chambers  by  injustices  that  maketh  his  neighbour  work  for 
nought,  and  give  th  him  not  his  hire.  .  .  .  Shalt  thou  reign  be^ 
cause  thou  viest  with  Ahab  ?  did  not  thy  father  eat  and  drink 
(i.e.,  enjoy  life),  and  do  judgment  and  justice  f  then  it  was  well 
with  him.  He  judged  the  cause  of  the  poor  and  needy;  then  it 
was  well.  Was  not  this  to  know  me  f  saith  Jehovah.  But 
thine  eyes  a^d  heart  are  only  upon  thy  {dishonest)  gain,  and  on 
shedding  innocent  blood,  and  on  carrying  out  a  crushing  oppres- 
siveness (Jer.  xxii.  13,  15-17). 

What  a  picture  !  Josiah's  model  was  David  ;  Jehoiakim's  is 
Ahab,  whose  judicial  murder  of  Naboth  was  the  culminating 
sin  of  his  life  {i  Kings  xxi.).  Is  it  not  an  apostrophe  worthy  of 
the  great  Elijah,  whose  vigorous  expression  (suggested,  it  is 
true,  by  his  antagonist)  "  disturber  of  Israel" — i.e.,  subverter  of 
the  ancient  social  and  religious  order — is  quite  as  applicable 
to  Jehoiakim  as  to  Ahab  ?  We  owe  the  genuine  reading  of 
Jer.  xxii.  15a  to  two  of  our  great  Septuagint  manuscripts  (the 
Alexandrine  and  the  Friderico- Augustan) ;  the  Massoretic  read- 


!    I 


•  Cox,  "  Biblical  Expositions,"  p.  lao.  Tristram  was  reminded  of  Eze- 
Iciel's  imagery  in  observing  the  rude  Syrian  mode  of  capturing  a  lion  by 
driving  it  with  cnes  and  noises  into  a  pitfall  with  spikes  at  the  bottom 
{♦•  Natural  History  of  the  Bible,"  p  118). 


THERE  BE  GODS  MANY,  LORDS  MANY. 


141 


ing  is  almost  impossible  to  construe,'  and  the  other  Septuagint 
reading  '*  with  Ahaz  "  (so  the  Vatican  MS.),  though  accepted  by 
Ewald,  is  to  be  rejected  (l,  because  "  vying  with  Ahaz "  has 
no  historical  basis ;  and  2,  because  "  Ahaz  "  might  easily  be 
misunderstood  to  mean  "  Jehoahaz,"  of  which  name  "  Ahaz  "  is 
an  abbreviation). 

But  the  description  of  Jehoiakim  is  not  confined  to  gene- 
ralities. He  is  brought  before  us  in  %>.  14  (which  '%  a  digression 
or  parenthetic  illustration)  as  a  great  builder,  and  as  such  re- 
ceives severe  censure.  This  is  worthy  of  remark.  The  archi* 
tectural  tastes  of  Solomon  are  mentioned  (i  Kings  v.-vii.)  without 
a  word  of  blame ;  why  should  those  of  Jehoiakim  be  treated 
differently?  At  another  time  certainly  no  one  could  have 
blamed  Jehoiakim  and  his  nobles '  for  being  discontented  with 
the  narrow,  ilMighted  chambers  of  Syrian  houses,  and  saying, 
/  will  build  me  a  wide  house  and  spacious  chambers,  and  cutting 
out  their  windows,  inlaying  the  chambers  with  cedar  ^  and  paint- 
ing them  with  vermilion  (Jer.  xxii.  14).  But  was  this  the 
moment  for  beautifying  Jerusalem  when  the  land  was  still 
groaning  under  Neco's  war-fine '  (2  Kings  xxiii.  2>S)  ?  And  how 
could  a  worshipper  of  Jehovah  wrong  his  brother-Israelite  by 
exacting  labour  for  which  he  had  neither  the  will,  nor  (we  may 
fairly  assume)  the  ability  to  pay  ? 

The  truth  is  that  Jehoiakim  was  smitten  with  a  passion  for 
the  pomp  and  splendour  of  an  Oriental  despot.  He  knew  by 
hearsay  of  the  great  buildings  of  Egypt  and  Assyria  which  had 
been  erected  by  forced  labour,  and  may  perhaps  already  have 
heard  of  some  of  the  grand  royal  constructions  of  Nebuchad- 
rezzar.*   Another  prophet  may  be  taken  to  allude  to  these  in 

*  R.V.,  however,  attempts  what  is  almost  impossible ;  "  thou  strivest 
to  excel  in  cedar  "  [i.e.,  in  cedar  buildings),  is  at  any  rate  good  English, 
and  masks  the  difficulty  that  Jehoiakim's  self-chosen  rival  is  not  named. 
The  reason  why  "with  Ahab  "  has  not  met  with  more  favour  is  that  critics 
supposed  his  "  ivory  house  "  to  be  alluded  to.  But  really  there  is  no  direct 
connexion  between  v.  14  and  v.  150. 

*  See  Jer.  xxii.  33  (quoted  later  on),  which  was  addressed  to  the  richer 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  including  the  king. 

9  It  was  a  comparatively  small  fine  (comp.  2  Kings  xv.  19,  xviii.  14) ; 
was  the  land  already  too  impoverished  to  bear  a  larger  one?  One  seems 
to  feel  in  reading  a  Kings  xxiii.  35  that  the  new  king's  mode  of  collecting 
it  caused  great  dissatisfaction. 

<  Oa  the  building  tastes  of  Assyrio-Babylonian  kings,  comp.  Perrot- 
Cbipief,  "  Ilistoty  of  Art  in  Chaldsea  and  Assyria,"  i.  51.    For  Nebuchad- 


142 


JEREMIAH. 


1  ':l 


the  following  passage,  the  conclusion  of  which  is  closely  parallel 
to  Jer.  xxii.  13,  17, — 

Woe  to  him  that  gaineth  evil  gains  for  his  house^  that  he  may 
set  his  nest  on  htgh^  that  he  may  withdraw  himself  from  the 
grasp  of  misfortune.  .  .  .  For  the  stone  shall  cry  out  of  the  wall^ 
and  the  beam  out  of  the  timber  shall  answer  it.  Woe  to  him 
that  buildeth  a  town  with  bloodshed^  and  establisheth  a  city  with 
wrong  (Hab.  ii.  9-12).  In  fact,  neither  Solomon  nor  Nebu- 
chadrezzar can  have  seemed  to  a  prophet  like  Jeremiah  or 
Habakkuk  a  much  fitter  model  than  Ahab,  and  to  accuse  Je- 
hoiakim  (whether  directly  or  indirectly)  of  copying  either  of 
these  kings  was  to  pronounce  his  religious  condemnation. 

In  their  religious  estimate  of  Nebuchadrezzar  the  prophets 
may  possibly  have  done  him  some  injustice  ;  into  this  delicate 
question  we  musi  not  refuse  to  enter  at  a  more  advanced  point 
of  the  narrative.  But  we  have  no  reason  to  question  Jeremiah's 
verdict  upon  Jehoiakim,  who,  alike  from  a  religious  and  a 
political  point  of  view,  appears  to  have  been  unequal  to  the 
crisis  in  the  fortunes  of  Israel.  It  might  indeed  be  urged  in 
favour  of  Jehoiakim  that  in  his  own  way  he  was  as  zealous  for 
Jehovah  as  his  father.  Had  he  not  even  changed  his  original 
name  Eliakim  (with  the  Pharaoh's  approval)  into  Jehoiakim,' 
to  assure  to  himself,  by  a  name  compounded  with  Jehovah,  the 
special  protection  of  Israel's  God  ?  To  apply  the  language  of 
Prof.  Milligan,  "  As  in  the  case  of  so  many  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment worthies,  his  name  is  the  index  to  what  he  was," "  or  at 
least  to  the  religion  which  he  professed.  Now  what  does  "Je- 
hoiakim "  mean  ?  **  Jehovah  (rather  Yahveh)  raiseth  up."  It  is 
an  expression  of  faith  that  it  is  by  Jehovah  (Yahveh)  that  princes 
reign,  and  that  not  alliances,  not  defenced  cities,  not "  the  mul- 
titude of  an  host,"  can  deliver  a  king,  but  the  God  in  whom  he 
trusts.    Some,  I  know,  have  said  that  it  was  Neco  who  changed 

reszar's  beautification  of  Babylon,  see  his  inscriptions  {fi.g.,  in  "  Records  of 
the  Past,"  vol.  xii.). 

*  See  a  Kings  xxiii.  34  (Dr.  Lumby's  note  in  the  "  Cambridge  Bible  " 
does  not  quite  meet  the  difficulty).  Eliakim's  brother  Shallum  (Jer.  xxii.  11) 
had  also  changed  his  name,  as  most  suppose.  Possibly  the  two  names, 
Uubid  and  Yahubid,  of  a  certain  king  of  Hamath  in  Sargon's  reign  may  be 
accounted  for  on  these  analogies.  On  the  Assyrian  custom,  see  Sayce, 
"  Hibbert  Lectures,"  pp.  303,  304  ;  and  on  Egyptian  and  Arabian  parallels 
Goldsiher,  "  Der  Mythos  bei  den  Hebrafim,"  p.  351. 

'  "  Elijah :  hitt  Life  and  Times,"  p.  43. 


THERl  BE  OODS  MANY,  LORDS  MANY. 


143 


the  name  of  Eliakim  into  Jehoiakim,  and  Nebuchadrezzar  who 
altered  Mattaniah's  name  into  Zedekiah.  They  have  on  their 
side  the  meagre  and  perhaps  hastily  compiled  Hebrew  record 
of  the  reigns  of  the  later  kings,  which  in  this  one  particular 
reads  more  like  an  Egyptian  than  a  Jewish  document.  But  if 
the  names  Jehoiakim  and  Zedekiah  had  been  directly  chosen 
by  the  Egyptian  and  the  Babylonian  king  respectively,  why  is  it 
that  they  have  not  an  Egyptian  and  a  Babylonian  colouring 
(comp.  Gen.  xli.  45,  Ezra  v.  14,  Dan.  i.  7,  and  the  names  given 
to  captured  cities  by  the  Assyrians)  ?  To  meet  this,  it  has  been 
suggested  that  the  names  of  the  Jewish  vassal  kings  may  have 
been  compounded  with  the  name  of  Israel's  God,  because  they 
had  been  made  to  swear  by  Jehovah.  This  view  is  barely  pos- 
sible with  regard  to  Zedekiah,  because  his  oath  of  fidelity  to 
Babylon  had  been  sanctioned  by  Jehovah's  prophets  (2  Chron. 
xxxvi.  13,  Ezek.  xvii.  13),  but  hardly  with  regard  to  Jehoiakim. 
The  prophets  of  this  period  were  as  a  rule  the  advocates  of  a 
strong  nationalistic  policy ;  the  higher  prophets— those  like 
Jeremiah — recognized  the  necessity  of  submission  to  Babylon, 
but  none,  so  far  as  we  know,  were  in  favour  of  Egypt.  But 
without  the  consent  of  prophets  of  Jehovah  it  is  difficult  to 
say  how  a  king  of  Judah  could  swear  allegiance  to  Egypt  by  the 
name  of  Jehovah.  I  think  then  that  Shallum's  and  Eliakim's 
and  Mattaniah's  change  of  name  must  have  had  a  religious 
motive  ;  it  was  as  if  the  king  entered  thereby  into  a  special, 
personal  covenant  with  his  father-God  (comp.  Psa.  Ixxxix.  26). 
Assyrian,  Egyptian,  and  Arabian  analogies  appear  to  me  to 
confirm  this  view. 

But  was  the  religion  professed  by  Jehoiakim  identical  with 
Josiah's  ?  It  was  of  course  based  on  the  worship  of  Jehovah  ; 
but  then  who  was  this  Jehovah,  and  what  amount  of  truth  was 
there  in  his  godship  ?  Certainly  he  did  not  rank  as  high  in 
the  scale  of  divinity  as  either  Merodach  (Maruduk),  in  whose 
honour,  and  not  simply  for  his  own  aggrandizement,  Nebuchad- 
rezzar strengthened  and  beautified  Babylon, or  Merodach's  divine 
son  Nebo  (Nabfi),  whose  "darlinji:"  the  great  king  called  him- 
self—both of  these  deities  were  honoiired  by  him  with  a  worship 
only  less  pure  and  noble  than  the  Hebrew  psalmists'  worship 
of  their  God.*    And  most  certainly  this  Jehovah  was  not  the 

•  For  Nebuchadrezzar's  prayers,  see  "  Records  of  the  Past,"  vol  xii.  ,• 
Sayce's  "Hibbert  Lectures,"  p,  97.  In  all  religiously  important  points, 
the  interpratation  of  them  ii^  I  believe,  secure. 


M 


144 


JEREMIAH. 


i< 


t 


i-i    I  il 


u 


Ihi 


ii 


i'  ! 


iilH 


equal  of  the  holy  God  who  spoke  by  Moses,  by  Elijah,  by 
the  Deuteronomist,  by  Jeremiah,  by  the  psalmists,  and  who 
attached  the  enjoyment  of  His  favour  to  compliance  with  strict 
moral  condiaons.  No  ;  the  Jehovah  in  whom  Jehoiakim  truly 
enough  professed  his  faith  on  ascending  the  throne  was  not  He 
whom  a  great  disciple  of  St.  Paul  so  emphatically  identifies 
with  the  Father  of  the  Lord  Jesus  (Heb. !.,  ii.) ;  rather  he  may 
be  called,  without  any  rhetorical  flourish,  a  rival  of  the  true 
God.  A  poor  rival,  some  may  say,  for  his  dangerousness  to 
Israel  consisted  in  the  fact  that  he  too  claimed  the  name 
Jehovah.  But  is  there  not  often  very  much  in  a  name  ?  Was 
not  the  contest  between  the  God  of  Elijah  and  the  God  of 
Ahab  and  Jezebel  a  contest  between  two  rival  claimants  of 
the  title  "Lord"  (Baal).''*  May  we  not  even  veniure  to  say 
that  upon  the  death  of  Josiah  a  contest  (or  a  new  phase  of  a 
contest)  began  between  two  Jehovahs,  not  in  the  sense  in 
which  such  a  contest  is  carried  on  in  the  speeches  of  Job,'  but 
in  that  in  which  in  other  coumries  besides  Palestine  a  bitter 
but  not  doubtful  contest  has  been  waged  between  a  partly 
moral  God,  who  tolerates  no  rival,  and  claims  the  empire  of  the 
world,  and  a  mere  territorial  divinity,  the  impersonation  of  the 
natural  forces  which  the  culti .  ator  of  the  soil  desires  to  pro- 
pitiate. The  true  "  son  "  or  "  servant "  of  Jehovah  (for  these 
terms  are  nearly  equivalent ;  see  2  Kings  xvi.  7,  Mai.  iii.  17, 
Gal.  iv.  \)  was  no  longer  the  Israelitish  but — startling  though 
most  true  paradox ! — the  Babvlonian  king.  And  this  in  a 
twofold  sense  ;  r,  because  N:';uchadi  :'?zar  carried  out  the  true 
God's  providential  purposes,  and  2,  because  there  are  strong 
points  of  afihnity  bet.vcjn  the  religion  of  Merodach  and  that 
of  Jeremiah's  Jehovah.  We  have  indeed  no  such  prophetic 
gloiifif ation  of  Nebuchad''C/  ar  as  the  "second  Isaiah"  gives 
of  Cyru^, — Thus  saith  y?hovali  to  his  Ancintedy  to  Cyrus^ 
whom  I  i^rasp  by  his  right  hand^ — words  which  so  strikingly 

«  W(!  may  legitimatdy  infer  this  from  Hos.  ii.  16  (on  which  see  my  note 
in  th(.  'Cambridge  Bible  ").  Ahab  would  not  have  confessed  that  he  was 
tin  opponent  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah.  But  io  the  great  prose-poet  who 
has  described  the  contest  on  Mount  Carmel  it  appeared  as  if  Ahab  had  in 
very  deed  led  the  Israelites  into  forsaking  Jehovah's  covenant  and  throwing 
down  His  altars.  The  exaggeration  was  only  natural ;  it  reveals  the  true 
poet  who  delights  in  simple,  direct  issues,  and  the  disciple  of  the  later 
prophets. 

•  Sec  "Job  and  Solomon,"  pp.  31,  3a. 


THERE  BE  GODS  MANY,  LORDS  MANY. 


US 


remind  us  of  expressions  in  the  Cyrus  cylinder^inscription 
(line  12),  "whose  hand  he  (Maruduk  or  Merodach)  holds." 
But  I  see  no  reason  why  Jeremiah  should  not  have  used 
them  as  a  direct  contradiction  to  the  misleading  name  of  the 
preceding  king  (Jehoahaz,  i.e.  "he  whom  Jehovah  holdeth")i 
except  perhaps  that  he  was  unaware  of  the  strong  resemblance 
in  character  between  Nebuchadrezzar's  God  and  his  own.  At 
any  rate,  he  does  twice  call  the  Babylonian  king  "my  ser- 
vant "  (xxvii.  6,  xliii.  10,  not  in  xxv.  9,  whic».  is  interpolated), 
and  even  if  he  means  this  in  the  lower  sense  of  "  one  who, 
with  or  against  his  will,  cannot  help  forwarding  the  designs 
of  Me,  who  am  God  of  Israel  and  of  all  the  nations,"  we  who 
read  his  words  in  the  light  of  history  know  that  they  mean  this, 
and  more  than  this,  viz.,  that  Nebuchadrezzar's  worship,  however 
imperfect,  was  accepted  by  Jehovah,  while  that  of  Jehoiakim, 
nominally  Jehovah's  "  son  "  and  "  servant,"  was  rejected.* 

To  this  battle  of  rival  Jehovahs,  there  corresponds  an 
antagonism  between  their  respective  representatives — Jehoiakim 
and  Jeremiah,  a  specimen  of  which  is  presented  to  us  in  Jer. 
xxxvi.  The  date  of  the  event  is  the  fifth,  or  more  probably,  as 
the  Septuagint  of  verse  9  says,  the  eighth  year  of  Jehoiakim, 
i.e.  the  fifth  year  of  Nebuchadrezzar.  The  king  of  Babylon 
has  hitherto  spared  Judah,  having  more  important  work  in 
other  frontier  territories.  But  at  last  he  finds  leisure  to  glance 
at  its  mountain  fortress  Jerusalem,  which  lies  too  near  Egypt 
(then  as  now  the  coveted  prize  of  ambition)  to  be  left  in  the 
hands  of  a  friend  of  Neco.  He  takes  the  field — or,  as  Bible 
language  puts  it,  "goes  up"— against  Judah  (2  Kings  xxiv.  1), 
but  he  encounters  no  resistance,  for  Jehoiakim  makes  haste 
to  swear  the  oath  of  fidelity. "  How  shall  we  account  for  the 
Jewish  king's  good  resolution?  Was  he  completely  taken  by 
surprise?  Had  he  made  no  request  for  Egyptian  aid?  Or 
had  the  inflated  self-conceit  of  the  Pharaohs  been  so  reduced 
by  the  disaster  at  Carchemish  that  Neco  refused  to  listen  to 
Jehoiakim's  prayer  ?    One  or  the  other  of  these  alternatives 


m 


■  I  fear  that  the  "  lower  sense  "  is  the  one  intended  by  Jeremiah,  to  whom 
the  few  spiritual  believers  in  Israel  formed,  collectively,  the  only  "  servant 
of  Jehovah  "  as  yet  in  existence  (Jer.  xxx.  10,  xlvi.  27,  28). 

■  Note  how  even  a  Jewish  prophet  recognizes  an  oath  of  fidelity  to 
Babylon  (Ezek.  xvii.  11-21),  and  contrast  Isaiah's  indifference  to  Hezekiah'i 
breach  of  faith  towards  Assyria. 

II 


146 


JEREMIAH. 


ii 


')! 


may  be  correct ;  but  a  third  view  is  suggested  by  an  atten- 
tive reading  of  the  striking  chapter  referred  to.  The  sub- 
ject, as  I  have  said,  is  a  duel  between  Jeremiah  and  his  bitter 
opponent  the  king— a  duel,  however,  in  which  the  combatants 
do  not  meet  face  to  face.  It  is  wonderful,  let  us  notice  in 
passing,  how  much  could  be  done  in  the  political  world  even 
then  merely  by  pen  and  ir>''  Jeremiah  was  certainly  no 
Cobbett,  but  he  produced  an  effect  with  the  help  of  his  scribe 
which  even  Cobbett  would  not  have  disdained.  Let  us  try  to 
picture  the  scene.  Nebuchadrezzar  and  his  army  have  crossed 
the  Jewish  border.  The  country-places  are  being  deserted ; 
Isaiah's  description  of  a  northern  army  (Isa.  xi^)  is  being 
verified  to  the  letter.  A  temple  fast  is  about  to  be  proclaimed 
(just  as  the  last  Assyrian  king  at  a  similar  crisis  proclaimed 
one)  for  the  citizens  of  Jerusalem,  and  for  all  who  have  flocked 
in  from  the  cities  of  Judah  (Jer.  xxxvi.  6-9).  Jeremiah  seizes 
the  opportunity  to  carry  out  a  new  plan.  The  people  will  not 
allow  him  to  address  them  ;  then  Baruch  the  scribe  shall  read 
the  most  relevant  of  his  prophecies  to  them,  especially  that 
very  important  one  (chap,  xxv.)  written  in  the  fatal  year  of 
Carchemish,  and  containing  a  new  and  definite  announcement 
of  most  serious  import.  The  trumpet  is  blown  in  Zion  (Joel 
ii.  i),  and  at  the  first  notes  citizens  and  refugees  alike  hasten 
to  the  temple.  Soon  sacrificial  smoke  ascends  ;  suppliant  pro- 
cessions  go  round  the  altar;  penitential  psalms  are  chanted, 
and  those  piercing  cries  of  which  Jewish  throats  are  capable 
resound  through  the  temple-courts.  Baruch,  too,  the  brave 
and  faithful  Baruch,  betakes  himself  to  God's  house  ;  or  rather, 
for  how  should  he  win  the  attention  of  this  busy  multitude  ? — 
to  one  of  the  many  chambers  of  different  sizes  attached  to  the 
temple.  A  fel'jw  scribe,  whose  duties  bring  him  into  constant 
relations  to  the  king,  and  who  is  the  brother  of  Jeremiah's 
patron  Ahikam,  offers  him  hospitality.  Probably  he  is  ac* 
quainted  with  Baruch,  who  himself  has  a  family  connexion 
with  the  court,  being  the  brother  of  one  high  functionary  (Jer. 
Ii.  59,  see  •'  Variorum  Bible ")  and  the  grandson  of  another 
(2  Chron.  xxxiv.  8).  *  In  this  large  room  Baruch  recites  one  or 
more  prophecies  to  many  of  the  people,  declaring  that  "thig 

*  The  respectful  behaviour  of  the  princes  to  Baruch  in  v.  15  confirms 
the  view  that  he  was  of  good  social  rank  ;  comp.  Josephus,  "Ant."  z. 
9, 1.    This  illustrates  Jeremiah's  caution  to  Baruch  in  Jer.  xlv.  50. 


THERE  BE  GODS  MANY,  LORDS  MANY. 


147 


house  shall  become  like  Shiloh,"  and  that "  Nebuchadrezzar  shall 
destroy  this  land  and  all  the  countries  round  about "  (Jer.  xxvi. 
6,  XXV.  9;  comp.  xxxvi.  29),  but  doubtless  adding  a  strong 
appeal  to  them  to  "  return  every  man  from  his  evil  way  that  I 
(Jehovah)  may  forgive  their  iniquity  "  (Jer.  xxxvi.  .3). 

Not  a  very  attractive  sermon  for  those  who  think  to  move 
Jehovah  by  forms  and  ceremonies  1  The  next  to  hear  it,  by  their 
own  request,  are  the  princes  in  their  council-chamber.  They  too 
are  startled  at  its  boldness.  They  know  Jeremiah,  but  a  pre- 
diction quite  so  definite  as  this  they  have  not  yet  heard  from 
him.  They  also  know  Jehoiakim,  and  how  passionately  ho 
resents  the  least  infringement  of  his  royal  rights.  As  politicians, 
too,  perhaps  they  partly  sympathize  with  him,  even  though,  as 
fellow-converts  of  Josiah,  the  oldest  and  gravest  of  them  revere 
Josiah's  prophet.  They  turn  trembling  one  to  another^  and  say 
unto  Baruch^  We  have  to  tell  the  king  of  all  these  words  (ver. 
16).  We  all  know  the  sequel !  it  is  one  of  the  scenes  in  the 
Bible-story  which  has  engraved  itself  the  most  deeply  on  the 
memory.  Jehoiakim  sends  for  the  scroll.  It  is  December ; 
Jehoiakim  is  sitting  in  the  "  winter  house,"  i.e.^  in  that  part  of 
the  royal  palace  which  was  arranged  for  use  in  winter  (comp. 
Amos  iii.  15),  and  there  is  a  fire  burning  in  the  fire-pan  or 
brasier — sti!!,  as  I  know  by  experience,  commonly  used  in  Syria» 
and  called  by  a  name  {kdniln)  which  also  designates  the  months 
of  December  and  January.  How  piercingly  cold  these  months 
can  be,  even  to  those  who  have  come  from  temperate  climes,  is 
well  known.  One  remembers,  too,  how  in  Ezra's  time,  on  the 
twentieth  day  of  the  ninth  month  (/.^.,  some  time  in  December), 
all  the  people  sat  in  the  street  of  the  house  of  God^  trembling 
because  of  this  matter^  and  for  the  great  rain  (Ezra  x.  9).  A 
group  of  courtiers  stands  in  the  background.  Jehudi  (a  courtier ; 
but,  being  the  son  of  an  Ethiopian,  not  a  Jewish  citizen)  comes 
forward  and  reads  first  one  column,  then  another,  and  then 
another.  But  the  proud  king  can  bear  it  no  longer  ;  he  rises- 
he  steps  forward — three  high  officers  in  vain  attempt  to  check 
Slim — he  snatches  the  scroll  from  the  reader's  hands — he  cuts  it, 
with  a  cruel  kind  of  pleasure,  into  piece  after  piece,  and  throws 
it  into  the  fire.  Then,  as  he  watches  the  curling  fragments,  he 
despatches  three  other  high  officers,  to  arrest  the  prophet  and 
the  scribe  on  a  charge  of  high  treason. 

The  fortunes  of  spiritual  religion  hang  upon  the  escape  of 
leremiah. 


ill 


,li 


!  "  < 


li'ki 


I. 


I! 

,  ii 

Jlii 
III' 


CHAPTER  V. 

BRIGHT  VISIONS  IN  THE  DEATH-CHAM tiEE. 

Jeremtah's  Wartburg  period  and  its  results— The  drought— The  problem  of 
Israel's  spiritual  condition— The  new  covenant— J eholakim's  rebellion 
— The  Rechabites— Two  symbolic  actions— J ehoiachin's  captivity— Hii 
character  and  Nebuchadrezzar's. 

The  duel  between  Jehoiakim  and  Jeremiah  reminds  us  to  some 
extent  of  that  between  Ahab  and  Elijah.  Differences  of  course 
there  are,  but  both  at  any  rate  agree  in  this,  that  a  prophet 
singlehanded  overmatched  a  king  and  his  false  prophets.  Take 
Jeremiah  for  instance.  Even  if  he  had  paid  for  his  boldness 
with  his  life,  yet  he  had  effectually  thwarted  the  advocates  of 
the  insane  policy  of  resistance.  You  remember  the  complaint 
of  the  enemies  of  Jeremiah  some  time  after  this,  He  wedkeneth 
the  hands  of  the  men  of  war  and  of  all  the  people  in  speaking 
ruck  words  unto  them  (Jer.  xxxviii.  4).  This  was  precisely 
what  the  prophet  did,  with  truest  patriotism,  on  this  occasion. 
The  stern  oracles  recited  by  Baruch  produced  such  an  eflfect 
that  no  one  either  would  or  could  lift  a  hand  against  Nebuchad- 
rezzar. Thus  a  brief  respite  was  gained  for  earnest  preachers 
to  renew  God's  conditional  offers  of  mercy,  and  a  last  chance 
presented  to  the  Jews  for  repentance.  Do  you  not  admire  the 
loving  craft  by  which  Jeremiah  accomplished  this  ?  Said  I  not 
lightly  that  he  was  fertile  in  resources  ? 

Elijah  and  Jeremiah  were  both  for  the  moment  successful, 
but  each  of  them  had  to  flee  from  his  defeated  antagonist.  Of 
the  latter  we  are  told  that  Jehovah  hid  him  *  (Jer.  xxxvi.  26). 

*  Ihe  princ&s  had  already  told  Baruch  to  go  into  hiding  with  Jeremiah 
{v.  3d) ;  but  how  easy  it  should  have  been  for  the  king's  officers  to  track 
them,  as  they  tracked  Urijah  Qer.  xxvi.  30-23) ' 


BRIGHT  VISIONS  IN  THE  DEATH-CHAMBER. 


149 


not 


May  there  not  be  an  allusion  to  this  in  a  psalm  plausibly 
ascribed  to  Jeremiah,  In  the  covert  of  thy  presence  dost  thou 
hide  them  from  theplottings  of  man;  thou  keepest  them  secretly 
in  a  pavilion  from  the  strife  of  tongues '  (Psa.  xxxi.  so,  see 
R.V.)  ?  One  loves  to  linger  on  such  sweet  words,  and  even  to 
hope  that  they  may  often  be  verified  in  lives  far  humbler  than 
Jeremiah's.  To  be  kept  in  a  pavilion  from  the  strife  of  tongues 
—oh  how  much  one  needs  this  amidst  the  jangling  controversies 
of  our  time  I  Oh  how  hard  it  is  to  preserve  the  attitude  of  the 
peace-maker,  of  one  who  does  justice  to  the  elements  of  truth 
in  contending  parties,  a  Falkland  in  theology  and  in  politics  ! 
How  hard,  nay,  how  impossible,  without  a  special  benediction 
not  vouchsafed  to  those  who  do  not  seek  it.  Keep  me,  as  the 
apple  of  the  eye;  hide  me  under  the  shadow  of  thy  wings— not 
that  I  may  evade  my  share  in  the  work  of  the  age,  but  that, 
being  in  heaven  with  my  heart,  I  may  work  the  better  with  head 
and  hands  upon  earth.  Fairness  and  charity  are  sure  tests  of 
this  heart-communion  with  heaven,  and  these  perfumes  of  the 
soul  cannot  be  long  preserved  unless  we  come  sometimes 
into  a  desert  place  apart,  and  rest  awhile.  There  we  repent  of 
having  followed  human  leaders,  instead  of  Him  whose  name  is 
Truth,  and  whose  "  banner  over  us  is  Love."  There  we  bathe 
in  the  waters  of  life,  and  lose  the  morbid  craving  for  earthly 
excitements,  the  joy  of  battle  and  the  fame  of  achievement. 
Too  seldom  have  we  collectedness  enough  for  this  spiritual  trans- 
figuration ;  and  so  God  Himself  gently  draws  us  apart  into  8oli« 
tude.  This  was  now  the  case  with  our  prophet,  who  had  indeed 
acquired  a  new  peace  of  mind,  but  who  was  still  ignorant  of  that 
sweet  charity  which  believeth  and  hopeth  all  things.  Perhaps 
"the  Lord  hid"  His  faithful  servant,  in  order  to  guide  him  to  this 
loftier  height.  Jeremiah  should  not  die  knowing  no  more  than 
a  Moses  or  an  Isaiah.  It  was  not  enough  that  he  had  lost  the 
irritation  of  conflict,  and  accepted  God's  will  as  in  some  uncom- 
prehended  way  the  best ;  not  enough  that  he  loved  God  and 
God's  people  with  a  pure  heart  fervently,  A  great  thing  was 
to  happen.  Jeremiah  was  to  be  taken  into  God's  secrets,  as  no 
other  prophet  had  been ;  and  as  a  consequence  of  this,  he 
was  to  realize  the  capacities  of  the  individual  soul  as  he  had 
not  done  before.  He  was  to  learn  to  love,  not  merely  Israel, 
but  each  Israelite. 

■  See  also  Psa.  zxxi.  ai,  and  cf.  Jer.  i.  18. 


'  II 


fi 


ISO 


JEREMIAH. 


mi 


And  the  king  copl  :*^nded  to  take  Baruch  and  Jeremiahj 
but  Jehovah  hid  them.  The  first  result  of  this  enforced 
seclusion  reminds  us  of  Martin  Luther's  Bible-work  in  the 
Wartburg.  Jeremiah  too  betook  himself  to  Bible-work.  The 
first  prophetic  roll  had  been  destroyed  ;  but,  as  in  the  case  of 
T/ndale's  New  Testament,  a  new  and  improved  edition  issued, 
as  it  were,  from  the  flames.  Jeremiah  cared  intensely  for  his 
people  ;  he  might  win  a  deeper  love  for  individuals,  but  no  man 
could  love  Israel  more  than  he.  And  if  love — if  even  his  love, 
anxious,  importunate,  and  sometimes  disguised  under  threaten- 
ings — was  powerless  to  move  his  people,  yat  a  stronger  appeal 
to  the  motive  of  self-interest  might  perhaps  do  so.  Therefore, 
we  are  told,  he  not  only  reproduced  the  old  prophecies,  but 
added  thereto  "  many  like  words  "  (Jer.  xxxvi.  32).  Only  for 
the  king,  though  a  son  of  his  friend  Josiah,  he  had  no  love  and 
consequently  no  hope  left.  He  foresaw  that  Jehoiakim's  vow 
of  fid(2lity  was  only  a  momentary  shift,  and  spared  no  circum< 
stancis  of  horror  in  foretelling  his  end.  But  we  must  not  think 
that  the  oracle  in  Jer.  xxxvi.  30  is  simply  retaliation  on  Jere- 
miah's part.  It  is  no  doubt  called  forth  by  a  personal  offence 
against  Jehovah's  prophet,  but  the  same  awful  details  come 
before  us  again  in  a  different  setting  (Jer.  xxii.  19)  as  the 
punishment  of  a  life  of  consistent  transgression  of  God's  law. 
Jeremiah  was  already  moving  towards  the  individualistic  view 
of  morality  implied,  as  we  shall  3ee,  in  his  great  final  discovery 
in  the  sphere  of  religion,  and  which  a  prophet  considerably 
influenced  by  him  (Ezekiel)  expresses  in  these  striking  words, — 

The  soul  that  sinneihy  it  shall  die.  The  son  shall  not  bear 
the  iniquity  of  the  father^  neither  shall  the  father  bear  the 
iniquity  of  the  son :  the  righteousness  of  the  righteous  shall 
be  upon  him^  and  the  wickedness  of  the  wicked  shall  be  upon 
him  (Ezek.  xviii.  20  ;  "  soul"  =  person,  cf.  Ezek.  xvi.  5,  A.V.). 

Among  the  prophecies  written  in  the  strict  privacy  of  this 
period  I  am  temptecl  to  include  at  any  rate  chaps,  xiv.,  xv.  (or 
xiv.  i-xv.  9).  The  softer  side  of  the  prophet's  nature  comes 
out  finely  in  the  first  of  these  chapters,  which  brings  vividly 
before  us  the  painful  "  searchings  of  heart "  which  accompanied 
th^  •xercise  of  his  prophetic  ministry.  One  of  those  terrible 
droughts  which  so  frequently  visited  Palestine  had  caused  acute 
suffering  among  all  classes,  as  well  as  among  the  cattle— with 
whom  psalmists  and  prophets  never  fail  to  sympathize.    Jere* 


BRIGHT  VISIONS  IN  THE  DEATH -CHAMBER. 


151 


eremiahj 

enforced 
c  in  the 
■k.    The 
!  case  of 
n  issued, 
y  for  his 
:  no  man 
his  love, 
hreaten- 
!r  appeal 
Jerefore, 
cies,  but 
Only  for 

love  and 

a's  vow 
circum- 
ot  think 

on  Jere- 
offence 

Is  come 
as  the 

d's  law. 

tic  view 

scovery 

derably 

ords, — 

ot  bear 

'■ar  the 

s  shall 

e  upon 

,  A. v.). 

of  this 

XV.  (or 

comes 

I'ividly 

panied 

errible 
acute 

-with 
Jere* 


miah's  picture  of  it  is  "like  some  of  Dante's  in  its  realism,  its 
pathos,  and  its  terror."  Twice  he  intercedes  for  his  people  on 
the  ground  of  the  covenant,  but  in  vain.  How  pathetic  is  the 
pleading  in  v.  8 1 — 

O  thou  hope  of  Israel^  the  saviour  thereof  in  time  of 
trouble^  why  shouldest  thou  be  as  a  stranger  in  the  land  (a 
fiiroiKO£,  who  had  no  civic  rights,  and  no  interest  in  the  com- 
nionweaUh),  and  as  a  wayfaring  man  that  turneth  aside  to 
tarry  for  a  night  f  (Jer.  xiv.  8,  A.V.)  The  first  verse  of  chap. 
XV.  connects  it  very  clearly  with  that  which  precedes. 

**  On  receiving  a  revelation  (xv.  2-9)  of  the  bitter  fate  in 
store  for  his  people,  Jeremiah  bursts  out  into  a  heart- 
rending complaint  that  his  destiny  should  throw  him  into  such 
a  whirlwind  of  strife.  His  Lord  at  once  corrects  and  consoles 
him  (xv.  10-21)."  So  I  have  myself  explained  the  connexion,* 
though  not  concealing  my  strong  doubts.  Surely  we  cannot 
appreciate  chap.  xvi.  unless  we  read  it  in  close  connexion  with 
XV.  7-9.  Could  we  venture  on  a  rearrangement  of  the  prophet's 
discourses,  we  should,  I  think,  be  justified  in  placing  this 
thrilling  passage  (xv.  10-21)  immediately  befoie  the  section  xl. 
1-6,  which  relates  the  prophet's  decision  to  remain  with  the 
Jews  at  home,  and  not  to  go  to  Babylon  with  the  exiles.  At 
any  rate,  it  is  this  passage  of  Jeremiah's  life  which  seems  to 
me  to  be  best  illustrated  by  it.  1  do  not  think  that  Jeremiah's 
newly  gained  acquiescence  in  the  will  of  God  concerning  his 
people  was  so  quickly  lost.  But  how  his  heart  must  have  bled 
that  even  the  comparatively  small  trouble  of  the  drought  could 
not  be  taken  away  in  answer  to  his  prayers  I  la  this  respect 
again  he  reminds  us  of  Elijah,  who,  charitable  as  he  was  by 
nature  (i  Kings  xvii.  17-24),  and  fervent  and  effectual  as  his 
supplications  were  (James  v.  16,  17),  could  not  help  his  people 
till  it  turned  back  to  Jehovah. 

The  drought  in  Jehoiakim's  reign,  however,  was  but  a 
"beginning  of  pangs,"  a  prophecy  of  severer  judgments,  a 
sign  that  Jehovah's  longsuffering  was  exhausted.  The  northern 
Israel,  when  gathered  in  a  national  assembly,  returned  from 
"  the  error  of  its  way."  Till  Judah  did  the  like,  what  hope 
was  there  for  its  future  ?  And  this  is  partly  why  Jeremiah 
from  the  very  first  is  so  earnest  in  attacking  the  moral  abuses 

*  "Jfremlah"  (in  the  "  Pulpit  Commentary"),  i.  37a. 


1 

li, 

'nil 


m 


n 


M 


isa 


JEREMIAH. 


of  his  time.  Jehovah  couid  not  be  to  His  people  that  which 
He  wished  to  be  until  they  had  offered  Him  that  to  which  He 
could  respond.  /  said,  Obey  my  voice,  and  walk  in  my  ways, 
and  I  will  be  to  you  a  God  (Jer.  vii.  23).  Nevertheless— M«y 
proceed  from  evil  to  evil,  and  know  not  me,  saith  Jehovah  (Jer. 
ix.  3).  Therefore,  0  Jerusalem,  wash  thine  heart  from  wicked- 
ness (Jer.  iv.  14). 

But  can  such  a  great  tfc'ng  be?  The  prophet  has  heard  kA 
physical  but  not  of  moral  miracles.  He  thinks  with  Zophar  in 
the  Book  of  lob— written  as  some  think  at  this  very  time— that 
an  empty  man  will  get  understanding,  when  a  wild  asis  colt 
is  born  a  man  (Job  xi.  12,  R.V.  marg.).  Can  the  Ethiopian 
change  his  skin,  or  the  leopard  his  spots  f  .  .  .  Woe  unto  thee^ 
O  Jerusalem  /  how  long  yet  ere  thou  become  pure  f  *  (Jer.  xiii. 
23,  27).  You  see  the  prophet  is  like  a  man  without  a  clue  in  a 
maze.  The  intricacy  of  the  problem  baffles  him.  It  is  not 
Job's  difficulty  of  the  righteous  man  suffering,  but  the  still 
gre?.ter  one  of  the  want  of  means  for  breaking  the  force  of 
habit,  and  giving  the  will  a  new  bias. 

I  venture  to  suppose  that  Jeremiah  began  to  make  the  dis- 
covery, or,  speaking  religiously,  to  receive  the  revelation,  which 
threw  a  flood  of  light  on  this  spiritual  problem,  during  his 
enforced  seclusion,*  and  that  this  is  why  Jehovah  hid  Baruch 
and  Jeremiah.  It  takes  long  to  bring  a  great  thought  to 
maturity.  The  process  was  certainly  completed  in  Jeremiah's 
case  at  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  ;  when  did  it  begin  ?  Surely  on 
the  day  when  the  last  hope  of  Judah's  repentance  began  to 
fade  away — when  the  faithful  prophets  had  either  been  killed 
(like  Uriah)  or  driven  into  hiding-places  (like  Jeremiah),  so  that 
the  work  of  preaching  could  /Uly  be  done  by  obscure  disciples 
at  the  peril  of  their  lives.  The  last  hope  had  not  yet  quite  dis- 
appeared ;  but  it  was  as  feeble  as  the  last  gleam  of  departing 
day.  What,  then,  is  this  sublime  truth  which  visited  the  pro- 
phet's mind,  and  enabled  him  to  look  forward  to  the  dread  future 
with  more  than  calmness,  to  bear  up  under  the  personal  perils  of 

*  R.V.'s  rendering,  in  some  respects  an  improvement  upon  A.V.,  retains 
the  faulty  "be  made  clean."  "Allow  thyself  to  be  made  clean  "  would  be 
bett-^r  ;  but  this  is  too  lengthy. 

*  I  du  not  deny  that  in  their  present  forir>  Jer.  xxz.,  xxxi.  belong  to  a 
later  period  than  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim.  See  Kuenen,  "  Onderzoek,"  iL 
007,  but  comp.  Graf,  "  Jeremia,"  pp.  365-368, 


BRIGHT  VISIONS  IN  THE  DEATH-CHAMBER. 


«S3 


the  siege  and  the  privations  hardly  less  painful  which  fol- 
lowed ? 

The  problem  which  besets  Jeremiah  is  not  quite  the  same 
as  that  which  beset  St  Paul,  when  he  wrote  those  three 
memorable  chapters,  Rom.  ix.,  x.,  xi.  St.  Paul's  problem  is 
twofold,— first,  how  the  apparent  fact  of  Israel's  rejection  is  to 
be  accounted  for;  and  next,  how,  in  spite  of  this  fact,  the 
ancient  promises  to  Israel  are  to  be  fulfilled.  The  first  part  of 
St.  Paul's  problem  is  discussed  by  him  at  great  length.  He 
answers  it  both  upon  theological  and  anthropological  or  psycho' 
logical  grounds.  Hath  not  the  potter  a  right  over  the  clay ^  from 
the  same  lump  to  make  one  part  a  vessel  unto  honour  and  another 
unto  dishonour?  (Rom.  ix.  21,  R.V.)  This  question  gives  the 
kernel  of  his  theological  argument :  God  predestines.  As  to 
Israel  he  saith,  All  the  day  long  did  I  spread  out  my  hands 
unto  a  disobedient  and  gainsaying  people  (Rom.  x.  21,  R.V.). 
This  quotation  from  Isaiah  gives  the  substance  of  his  psycho- 
logical argument :  man  is  free  to  obey  or  disobey.  The  second 
part  of  his  problem  the  apostle  does  not  discuss  at  all ;  it  was 
unnecessary  after  the  many  glimpses  which  he  had  given  into 
his  Divine  philosophy.  A  hardening  in  part  hath  befallen 
Israel^  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  be  come  in;  and  so  all 
Israel  shall  be  saved  (Rom.  xi.  25,  26,  R.V.).  The  judicial 
blindness  from  which  the  Jews  suffer  at  present  shall  in  God's 
good  time  be  taken  away,  and  then  the  gospel  will  find  an 
entrance  into  their  heart ;  or,  to  quote  from  an  earlier  Epistle, 
Unto  this  day^  whensoever  Moses  is  ready  a  veil  lieth  upon  their 
heart  J  but  whensoever  it  shall  turn  to  the  Lord^  the  veil  is 
taken  away  (2  Cor.  iii.  15,  16). 

Our  prophet  would  not  have  sympathized  with  St.  Paul's 
theological  use  of  the  figure  of  the  potter.  Very  different  is  his 
own  application  of  it  in  chap,  xviii.  Jehovah,  according  to 
him,  has  not  the  sovereign  right  to  do  as  He  will  either  with 
individuals  or  with  nations,  His  action  being  strictly  limited  by 
a  regard  to  character.  Israel  was,  no  doubt,  in  these  latter 
years,  like  clay  in  the  hand  of  the  potter  :  its  fate  is  about  to 
Ije  determined.  But  Jehovah  has  endowed  His  creature  with 
the  power  of  choosing  its  own  lot.  No  threat  of  punishment 
can  be  unconditional.  One  instant  (such  is  the  Divine  voice 
in  our  prophet's  heart)  /  may  speak  concerning  a  nation  and  a 
kingdom^  to  pluck  up  and  to  pull  down  and  to  destroy;  but  if  that 


'54 


JEREMIAH. 


r,  ■' 


nation,  against  which  I  have  spoken,  turn  from  their  ivil^  1 
repent  of  the  evil  that  I  thought  to  do  unto  them  (Jer.  xviii.  7, 
8).  Nor  would  Jereminh  have  laid  such  a  stress  on  the  judicial 
hardening  of  Israel's  heart.  If  it  be  true  that  Jehovah  hath 
rejected  them  (Jer.  vi.  30),  it  is  because  they  are  all  grievous 
revolters  (Jer.  vi.  28).  Isaiah  may  introduce  Jehovah  saying, 
Go  on  hearing,  but  understand  not,  and  go  on  seeing,  but  per- 
ceive not  (Isa.  vi.  9),  but  Jeremiah  accounts  for  Israel's  rebellion 
simply  and  solely  by  a  spontaneous  action  on  Israel's  part : — 
This  people  hath  a  revolting  and  a  rebellious  heart;  they  are 
revolted  and  gone  (Jer.  vi.  23).  It  is  therefore  not  difficult  to 
Jeremiah  to  take  in  the  idea  of  the  rejection  of  Israel,  con- 
sidered apart  from  the  Divine  covenant ;  but  it  is  an  enigma 
how  Jehovah's  sure  word  of  promise  is  to  be  fulfilled.  Let  us 
see  how  light  dawns  upon  the  prophet.  The  record  of  it  is  to 
be  found  in  chaps,  xxx.,  xxxi.,  which  represent,  as  xxx.  4  states, 
"  the  words  which  Jehovah  spake  concerning  Israel  and  con- 
cerning Judah."  It  is  clear  that  Jeremiah  can  never  have 
delivered  this  prophecy  before  a  mixed  audience ;  it  is  an 
anticipation  of  Isa.  xl.-Ixvi.,  and  meant  for  the  comfort  of 
penitent  believers  during  the  Exile.  The  later  seer's  prophecy 
of  Israel's  Restoration  may  be,  poetically  regarded,  finer  than 
Jeremiah's,  but  except  in  chap.  liii.  (the  chapter  of  the  Sin-bearer, 
and  in  the  passages  relative  to  the  Church),  is  less  original ; 
so  that  the  earliest  "  evangelical  prophet "  is,  not  the  Baby- 
lonian Isaiah,  but  Jeremiah,  and  chaps,  xxx.,  xxxi.,  are  the 
casket  in  which  the  evangelical  truths  are  enshrined.  The 
prophecy  falls  into  two  parts,  the  first  reaching  from  xxx.  5  to 
xxxi.  14,  the  second  from  xxxi.  15  to  xxxi.  40.  Part  I.  itself 
has  four  sections,  in  each  of  which  the  prophet  (or  shall 
I  say  ?  the  seer)  reveals  himself  as  a  master  of  picturesque 
imagery.  His  usual  practice  is  *o  begin  a  section  with  a  picture 
of  the  calamitous  present,  but  this  is  only  to  enhance  the  effect 
of  a  prophetic  description  of  the  glorious  future.  Yes ;  the 
prophet  has  come  to  the  end  of  his  jeremiads ;  he  can  almost 
welcome  calamity  in  the  strength  of  his  new  faith  in  the  Divine 
promise.  As  one  of  the  later  psalmists  wrote  from  the  point  of 
view  of  at  least  an  initial  fulfilment,  He  hath  sent  redemption 
unto  his  people;  he  hath  appointed  his  covenant  for  ever ; 
holy  and  reverend  is  his  name  (Psa.  cxi.  9).  Redemption  I  A 
short  time  ago  Jeremiah  would  not  perhaps  have  thought  it 


BRIGHT  VISIONS  IN  THE  DEATH-CHAMBER. 


I5S 


evil,! 

xviii.  7, 
judicial 
ah  hath 
grievous 
saying, 
but  per- 
ebellion 
part  :— 
they  are 
ficult  to 
el,  con- 
enigma 
Let  us 
it  is  to 
\  states, 
nd  con- 
;r  have 
t  is  an 
nfort  of 
rophecy 
er  than 
-bearer, 
riginal ; 
I  Baby- 
ire  the 
The 
«.  5  to 
[.  itself 
r  shall 
iresque 
picture 
;  effect 
3;  the 
almost 
Divine 
3int  of 
nption 
ever  ; 
il    A 
ght  it 


possible ;  but  now  he  builds  upon  it  as  an  assured  certainty. 
With  the  eye  and  ear  of  faith,  he  discerns  Jehovah  approaching 
to  redeem  Israsl,  and  saying,  I  have  loved  thee  with  an  ever- 
lasting  love  ;  therefore  do  I  continue  lovingkindness  unto  thee. 

In  the  fourth  section  {vv.  7-14),  transported  with  joy,  the 
prophet  breaks  through  his  custom,  and  at  once  gives  an 
idyllic  sketch  of  the  future  prosperity.  Specially  beautiful  is 
the  op<iiMng  of  the  second  part,'  which,  as  Matt.  ii.  16-18 
shows,  found  a  home  in  the  Jewish  heart.  The  prophet 
seems  to  hear  Rachel  weeping  for  her  banished  children, 
and  comforts  her  with  the  assurance  that  they  shall  yet  be 
restored.  For  Ephraim  has  come  to  himself,  and  God,  who  has 
overheard  his  soliloquy,  advances  towards  him  with  gracious 
promises.  Then  another  voice  is  heard  calling  Ephraim 
home.  See  the  generosity  of  a  true  prophet— a  statesman  in 
the  kingdom  of  God.  Should  Jeremiah's  prophecy  fall  into 
the  hands  of  the  recently  acquired  subjects  of  Judah,  how  they 
will  contrast  his  treatment  of  them  with  Isaiah's  1  The  older 
citizens  of  the  enlarged  state  sufficiently  know  their  prophet's 
passionate  love  for  his  people.  Well  may  they  be  content 
with  the  few  but  radiant  lines  given  them  in  Jer.  xxxi.  23-25. 
Alas  I  too  soon  the  sweet  vision  vanishes  ;  but  it  continues 
to  supply  food  for  his  Spirit-guided  meditations.  How  this 
strange  reversal  of  Israel's  fortunes  (Israel's,  not  less  than 
Judah's, — the  "  ten  tribes  "  cannot  be  lost)  can  possibly  be,  is 
as  yet  a  moral  mystery  to  Jeremiah,  just  as  it  was  to  the 
psalmist  who  wrote  those  two  strangely-contrasting  verses, — 

Lord,  where  are  thy  old  lovin^kindnesses 

Which  thou  swarest  unto  David  in  thy  faithfulness  t 

For  thou  hast  said,  lovingkindness  shall  be  built  for  ever; 
In  the  heaven  {itself)  wilt  thou  stablisk  thy  faithfulness. 

(Psa.  Ixxxix.  49,  a.) 

But  the  fact,  to  both  writers,  is  not  less  certain  than  the  exist- 
ence of  God.  The  first  helpful  idea  that  occurs  to  him  (Jer. 
xxxi.  29,  30)  is  that  God  cannot,  strictly  speaking,  be  said  to 

*  At  that  most  interesting  place  Eleusis,  I  could  not  help  comparing  Demeter, 
sitting  on  the  mystic  stone,  and  weeping  for  her  daughter,  with  the  poet- 
prophet's  Rachel  May  not  both  be  fitly  taken  as  symbols  of  Humanitf 
weeping  for  its  children  carried  off  into  the  •'  land  of  the  enemy  "  ?  Surely 
this  is  in  the  spirit  of  St.  Matthew  (comp.  Dante,  "  Convito,"  ii.  i).  We  all 
•f  Its  find  such  higher  meanings  in  Shakespeare ;  why  not  in  Jeremiah? 


f 


156 


JEREMIAH. 


■:  -   I- 


"visit  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children."  If  the 
children  are  punished,  it  must  be  because  human  sin  has  a 
natural  tendency  to  perpetuate  itself  in  succeeding  generations ; 
no  transgressor  is  punished  simply  for  the  sin  of  his  ancestor. 
As  Barabas  asks  the  cruel  governor  in  Marlowe's  "Jew  of 
Malta  "  (act  i.,  scene  2), 

*•  But  say  the  tribe  that  I  descended  of 
Were  all  in  general  cast  away  for  sin, 
Shall  I  be  tried  by  their  'ransgression  ? 
•  TAe  man  that  dealeth  r'ghteously  shall  livt* " 

A  comforting  idea,  doubtless,  during  the  Captivity,  but  one 
which  does  not  clear  up  the  difficulty — how  an  ungodly  nation 
is  to  be  made  godly.  Hezekiah  and  Josiah  had  cut  the  Gordian 
knot,  but  to  the  little  band  of  advanced  religious  thinkers  a 
violent  reformation  had  become  intensely  repugnant.  Even 
Deuteronomy  did  not  meet  the  wants  of  the  time  ;  it  was  a 
compromise  between  two  opposing  principles — the  legal  and 
the  evangelical  Jeremiah  felt  that  if  the  problem  were  to  be 
solved,  it  must  be  on  the  evangelical  and  not  on  the  legal 
principle ;  in  short,  that  he  must  work  out  the  germinal  ideas 
found  in  the  prophetic  not  the  legal  i>art  of  Deuteronomy. 
Obedience,  according  to  this  part  of  the  book,  is  based,  not 
upon  compulsion,  but  upon  love  (see  Deut.  xi.  i),  and  in  one 
remarkable  passage  (Deut.  x.  16 — for  I  exclude  Deut.  xxx.  6,  as 
not  in  the  original  book)  we  find  the  strangely  new  phrase  "  to 
circumcise  the  heart."  But  was  this  "evangelical"  enough? 
Had  not  Israel  los«  (if  it  ever  possersed  it)  the  faculty  of  loving 
God  ?  What  great  things  God  had  done  in  the  past  I  and  yet 
Israel  had  never  felt  more  than  a  slight  tingling  of  gratitude 
comparable  to  morning  dew.  And  how  could  Israel  *•  circum- 
cise "  his  own  heart  ?  The  virgin  of  Israel  is  fallen;  she  can 
no  more  rise;  she  is  cast  down  upon  her  land;  there  is  none 
to  raise  her  up  (Amos  v.  2).  Moses  has  not  sympathy  enough  ; 
he  broke  the  two  tables  of  stone  at  the  sight  of  Israel's  very 
first  sin,  and  what  means  of  help  has  he  in  his  covenant? 
Surely  the  thunders  of  Sinai  do  but  sound  the  knell  of  con- 
demned sinners.  And  so  with  the  boldness  of  despair,  and  the 
intensity  of  a  love  like  St.  Paul's  (Rom.  ix.  3),  Jeremiah  dares 
to  proclaim  that  the  old  covenant  is  superseded  by  a  new  one 
which  more  completely  meets  the  wants  of  poor  human  nature. 


BRIGHT  VISIONS  IN  THE  DEATH-CHAMBER. 


iS7 


ew  of 


Its  contents  may  be  summed  up  thus.  God,  of  His  free  graces 
will  make  the  people  what  He  would  have  them  to  be,  by  first 
forgiving  their  sins  in  so  absolute  a  manner  that  it  shall  seem 
as  though  He  had  forgotten  them,  and  then  as  it  were  writing 
His  requirements  on  the  tablets  of  their  hearts  (comp.  Psa.  xl. 
8).  Neither  priests  nor  sacrifices  will  therefore  be  henceforth 
necessary — the  one  for  making  known  to  men  the  details  of 
Jehovah's  forahy  and  the  other  for  expiating  sins  and  trans- 
gressions. A  written  tord/i,  too,  will  become  superfluous,  and 
there  will  be  no  longer  the  rerrible  fear  that  the  copies  in 
circulation  may  be  "  handled  deceitfully  "  (see  Jer.  viii.  8). 

Some  one,  however,  may  ask.  Is  not  this  going  too  far? 
Does  the  promise  of  the  new  covenant  really  anticipate  that 
priesthood  and  sacrifices  will  be  abolished  ? — But  did  I  use  the 
word  "  abolished  "  ?  Jeremiah's  words  do  indeed  appear  to  me 
to  point  to  a  time  when  a  regenerate  people  will,  as  the  hymn 
says, 

" see  Thee  face  to  face, 

In  peaceful,  glad  Jerusalem,  thrice  holy,  happy  place. 
When  Sacrament  and  Temple  shall  never  more  be  known, 
When  Thou  art  Temple,  Sacrifice,  and  Priest  upon  the  throne." 

But  neither  here  nor  elsewhere  does  the  prophet  explicitly 
announce  such  wonderful  things  ;  nor  do  I  say  that  the  last 
line  was  within  the  range  even  of  his  thoughts.  All  that  he 
affirms  here  is  that  there  shall  be  direct  relations  between 
Jehovah  and  each  member  of  His  people  (individuality  shall 
come  to  its  rights) ;  all  that  vii.  22  declares  is  that  the  Sinai 
covenant  related  not  to  sacrifices  but  to  obedience  ;  all  that 
xvii.  12,  13  and  iii.  16,  taken  together,  say  is  that  Jehovah  is 
Israel's  true  sanctuary,  so  that  the  presence  of  the  ark  in  the 
earthly  temple  was  unimportant.'  We  may  safely  assume  that 
Jeremiah's  disciples  consisted  of  two  classes  of  men — those 
who  could  rise  to  the  sunlit  heights  of  spirituality  (comp.  Psa. 
li.  17),  and  those  who  into  their  pictures  of  the  future  could  not 
help  introducing  temple  and  ark,  priests  and  sacrifices  (see 
xvii.  26,  xxxi.  1 1, 14,  and  comp.  Psa.  li.  19).  In  truth,  Jeremiah's 
predictions  of  the  Messianic  age  were  all  the  more  stimulative 

•  The  Deuteronomic  tordk  (apart  from  its  setting)  does  not  mention  tha 
ark.  Josiah,  to  prevent  superstition,  forbade  it  to  be  carried  about  in 
processions  (a  Chron.  xxxv,  2).  A  late  legend  says  that  Jeremiah  afterward! 
bid  it  in  a  cave  on  Mount  Pisgah  (2  Mace,  ii,  4,  5). 


I 

il 

I 


'^\ 


if 


i5» 


JEREMIAH. 


i 


" 


ii 


because  of  their  real  or  apparent  Inconsiste -,cies.  It  would  not 
have  been  well  that  one  cL'^s  oi  hinkers  abne  sho'ild  be  iblu 
to  appeal  to  Jertmiah ;  he  shines  out  more  gloriously  as  the 
author  of  a  movement  than  he  would  have  done  as  the  founder 
of  a  sect.  If  Isa.  Ixvi.  i  is  inspired  by  Jeremiah,  so  also  is 
Ezek.  xxxvii.  26-28,'  and,  may  we  not  add,  the  prophecies  on 
the  Church  and  on  the  Sin-bearer  due  to  that  great  piophet,  who 
was  "  hidden  "  in  Babylonia  (like  Jeremiah  in  Jerusalem)  that 
he  might  brood  deeply  over  the  spiritual  problem  of  Israel. 
Not  Jeremiah,  but  the  Second  Isaiah,  had  the  first  dim  intuition 
of  the  "  mediator  of  the  new  covenant,"  but  the  "new  covenant " 
itself  was  first  foreseen  by  Jeremiah. 

Said  I  not  right  that  •'  the  fortunes  of  spiritual  religion  hung 
on  the  escape  of  Jeremiah  ?  "  But  in  faci  his  life  is  a  series  of 
escapes.  He  was  soon  to  exclaim — whether  he  wrote  the  words 
or  not,  they  must  express  his  feeling,  Blessed  be  Jehovah  I  for 
he  hath  shewed  me  passing  great  kindness  in  a  besieged  city 
(Psa.  xxxi.  21).  Wishing  himself  back  under  the  Pharaoh's 
supremacy,  Jehoiakim  in  B.C.  597  broke  his  oath  to  Babylon, 
three  years  after  he  had  taken  it.  The  neighbouring  peoples 
refused  to  join  him.  Following  the  example  of  "  the  Chaldseans  " 
(/.tf.,  those  left  in  garrison  in  Syria),  they  made  raids  upon  the 
country  districts  of  Judah  (2  Kings  xxiv.  2,  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  5 
Sept.),  driving  a  crowd  of  fugitives  before  them  to  Jerusalem. 
One  dramatic  scene  in  Jeremiah's  biography,  well  versified  by 
Dean  Plumptre,  belongs  to  this  period  (Jer.  xxxv.).  Venturing 
forth  in  this  great  crisis,  he  noticed  among  the  refugees  a  group 
of  men  of  strange  aspect,  seldom  or  never  seen  before  in 
Jerusalem.  Ther.e  men  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  the  Rechabites, 
who  were  3  branch  of  the  Kenites,  and  therefore  bound  by  an 
ancient  alliance  to  the  Israelites,  and  who  stood,  both  socially 
and  religiously,  exactly  where  the  Israelites  stood  during  their 
wanderings,  after  they  had  consolidated  their  union  on  the  basis 
of  Jehovah-worship."  They  had  had,  as  it  seems,  a  great 
reformer^  who  had  restored  the  purity  of  their  social  and 
religious  customs,  one  Jouadab,  whose  zeal  for  Jehovah  is 
described  in  2  Kings  x.  15-27,  and  whose  personal  influence  on 

*  Note,  in  this  connexion,  Ezekiel's  fondness  for  the  term  "  covenant " 
(see  Ezek.  xi.  so,  xiv.  11,  xxxiv.  24,  xxxvi.  28,  xxxvii.  23,  27). 

»  Probably  enough,  the  Rechabites  adopted  into  their  clan  many  who, 
like  the  li^senes  afterwards,  were  disgusted  with  a  too  sensuous  civilizatioi^ 


BRIGHT  VISIONS  IN  THE  DEATH  CHAMB/.  U 


«S9 


I  ] 


# 


his  clan  exceeded,  as  Jeremiah  declares,  that  of  even  the  greatest 
prophets  on  the  Israelites.  Jeremiah  knew  the  religious  con- 
stancy of  these  Rechabites,  and  put  it  to  a  severe  test,  in  order 
to  contrast  it  with  the  religious  inconstancy  of  the  Israelites. 
According  to  their  law,  these  simple  folk  ought  not  to  have 
entered  a  walled  city  like  Jerusalem.  If  they  had  broken  their 
vows  in  one  respect,  wh^  hould  they  not  in  another  ?  There 
were  the  wine-bowls  and  te  l  nking-cups  ;  why  not  enjoy  one 
of  the  sweetest  and  •  ost  'ued  products  of  civilization  ? 
Plainly  and  even  bkat  „  thu  Rechabites  refused  to  drink. 
Jeremiah  was  prepai«^w  or  his  result,  and  at  once  pointed  the 
moral. 

Jonadab  had  tied  hi"  people  to  a  life  of  hardship;  Jehovah 
had  done  the  oppos. .e>  simply  requiring  obedience  to  certain 
precepts,  chiefly  moral,  which  would  set  Israel  on  high  above 
the  nations  of  the  earth.  Yet  Jonadab's  precepts  were  obeyed 
and  Jehovah's  were  not.  Therefore  all  the  threatenings  con- 
ditionally pronounced  against  Israel  must  be  fulfilled,  whereas 
Jonadab^  the  son  of  Rechab^  shall  not  want  a  man  to  stand 
before  me  .,  or  ever  (Jer.  xxxv.  19).  What  does  this  closing 
promise  mean?  "To  live  long  in  the  land"  is  the  reward  of 
filial  obedience  in  Exod.  xx.  12.  The  Rechabites  therefore  are  to 
continue  in  Judah,  while  the  Jews  are  carried  captive  to  Babylon. 
Nor  will  their  life  be  useless.  They  will  go  on  witnessing  to 
the  divinity  of  Jehovah  in  Jehovah's  land.  Although  without 
any  but  the  simplest  ritual,  they  will  be,  what  Israel  ought  to 
have  been,  a  "  kingdom  of  priests  "  (Exod.  xix.  6) ;  for  "  to  stand 
before  Jehovah  "  is  specially  the  function  of  priests.' 

The  ceaseless  inroads  of  the  "  bands  "  of  divers  nations  were 
almost  worse  to  bear  than  a  regular  invasion.  What  such 
"  b?nds  "  could  do,  we  may  see  from  i  Sam.  xxx.  i,  2  (comp.  v. 
8).  Even  the  Rechabites  fled  before  them  in  dismay.  The  land 
of  Judah  was  passing  through  a  similar  experience  to  that  of 
Babylonia  during  the  Scythian  invasion.  Was  Jehoiakim,  then 
defenceless  ?  Yes ;  the  warriors  were  paralyzed  by  dread  of 
the  Cbaldaeans,  and  Neco's  troops,  on  which  (comp.  Jer.  xvii.  5, 
6)  the  king  probably  relied,  were  slow  to  appear.  In  the  midst 
of  this  confusion  the  chief  author  of  it  all  died.  How,  we 
cannot  say  for  certain.    Did  he,  like  Joash,  fall  by  the  assassin's 

Was  Jeremiah  thinking  of  the  favourite  yhrase  of  Jonadab's  great 
Bredecessor  Elijah,  Jthovah,  befort  tokom  I  stand  t 


i6o 


JEREMIAH. 


I'ii 


^  . 


hand,  and  was  his  dead  body  thereupon  cast  out  unburied,  as 
Jeremiah  had  threatened?  Or  does  the  Septuagint  correctly 
report  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  8)  that  "  Joakim  slept  with  his  fathers, 
and  was  buried  in  ganozan  "  (i.e.f  the  garden  of  Oza  or  Uzza)  ? 
The  latter  view  is  at  any  rate  much  the  easier.'  Jehoiakim 
died  in  peace,  and  upon  his  unoffending  son  was  visited  the 
collective  sin  of  his  family.  It  was  a  short  reign  which  fell  to 
the  lot  of  Jehoiachin— just  as  long  as  Napoleon's  after  his  land« 
ing  in  March,  181 5,  or  as  that  of  his  own  uncle  JehoaLaz,  and 
then — more  bitter  weeping  than  c  "n  for  his  ill-fated  uncle. 
But  I  must  not  anticipate ;  for  Jeremiah  has  left  us  an  amplo 
record  of  his  prophetic  activity  during  these  three  months." 

We  know  the  prophet's  tone  of  mind  already.  He  was  no 
longer  called  upon— 

*'  To  watch  with  6rm,  unshrinking  eye 
His  darling  visions  as  they  die." 

The  old  visions  had  long  since  died  away ;  new  and  more 
divine  ones  had  taken  their  place.  One  of  his  first  actions  was 
to  renew  the  terrible  announcements  familiar  to  us  already  from 
chap.  vii.  To  emphasize  this,  he  had  recourse  to  that  sign- 
ianguage  in  which  the  heroes  and  prophets  of  Israel  delighted 
(i  Sam.  xi.  7,  Amos  vii.,  viii.),  although  the  words  of  the  Hebrew 
tongue  were  as  full  of  expressive  figure  as  they  could  be.  Once 
more,  it  was  the  work  of  the  potter  which  he  chose  f  1  symbol, 
but  not  the  still  soft  though  moulded  clay  (as  in  chap,  xviii.), 
but  the  already  definitely  formed  vessel.  With  this  he  went 
with  certain  elders  into  the  glen  of  Hinnom,  and,  as  a  Syrian 
fellah  still  does  when  under  the  dominion  of  violent  passion, 
shivered  the  jar  to  atoms.^  Need  I  repeat  the  prophet's  sermon, 
or  need  I  add  that  it  drew  down  upon  him  the  wrath  of  the 
priests?  The  instrument  of  torture  applied  to  him  (Jer.  xx.  2) 
was  doubtless  more  painful  than  our  "  stocks  " ;  and  his  punish- 
ment was  equivalent  to  a  declaration  that  he  was  a  madman 
and  a  pretender  to  the  prophetic  ofifice  (see  Jer.  xxix.  26).  It 
was  the  duty  of  the  "  second  priest "  (comp.  Jer.  Hi.  24)  to  keep 

*  The  statement  in  the  Greek  version  runs  directly  counter  to  the  terms 
of  the  denunciation  in  Jer.  xxii.  19,  xxxvi.  30,  and  must  therefore  be  founded 
on  tradition. 

*  3  Kings  xxiv.  8  says  "three  months" ;  a  Chron.  xxxvL  9  adds,  "and 
tea  days." 

3  Sfmilar  actions  are  ascribed  to  early  Quaker  zealots. 


a/ 


BRIGHT  VISIONS  IN  THE  DEATH-CHAMBER. 


i6i 


]' 


..'^J 

''<'^'<- 


an  eye  on  snch  ;  in  fact,  the  guild  of  the  prophets  was  subject 
to  a  certain  official  control  on  the  part  of  the  priests.'  Jeremiah, 
though  in  the  "stocks,"  will  not  be  hindered  from  uttering  his 
revelations.  He  answers  Pashhur  very  nearly  as  Amos  answered 
Amaziah  the  priest  of  Bethel  in  like  circumstances  (Amos  vii.  16, 
17).  I  do  not  think,  however,  that  because  of  this  bitter  utterance 
I  need  modify  what  I  said  just  now  of  Jeremiah's  tone  of  mind. 
It  is  true  that  Jer.  xx.  7-18  contains  expressions  which  are  not 
in  harmony  with  the  heroic  temper  which  I  have  ascribed  to  him. 
But  this  section  is  almost  entirely  out  of  chronological  order  ; 
probably  it  wis  placed  where  it  now  stands  simply  because 
the  phrase  Ma,gdr-missablb  occurs  both  in  v.  4  and  in  v.  10. 

This  was  not  the  prophet's  only  use  of  sign -speech.  He  is 
deficient  in  that  fine  taste  which  distinguishes  a  greater  than 
the  prophets  in  His  parables  from  common  life.  But  when  we 
see  his  meaning,  I  think  we  shall  excuse  him  tor  the  symbolic 
text  of  his  sermon  against  Judah's  pride.  Evidently  his  mind 
was  much  exercised  by  the  dissolution  of  the  bond  between 
Jehovah  and  Israel.  This  is  what  he  says  elsewhere,  in  a 
choicer  style,  of  the  new  king, — 

As  I live^  satth  Jehovah,  though  Coniah,  the  son  oj  Jehoiakim^ 
king  of  Judah,  be  a  signet  upon  my  tight  hand^  surely  I  will 
pluck  thee  thence  (Jer  xxii.  24). 

The  humiliation  of  course  is  greater  when  the  object  of  com- 
parison is  a  rotting  linen  apron.  I  cannot  help  thinking  that 
the  choice  of  this  symbol  was  dictated  by  a  proverb  like  the 
Arabic,  "  He  is  unto  me  in  place  of  a  waist-wrapper '; "  it  will 
be  noticed  that  the  second  part  of  the  discourse  actually  has  a 
proverbial  saying  for  its  text.  The  strangeness  of  Jer.  xiii.  i-ii 
will  now  perhaps  offend  the  reader  less,  especially  if  I  add  that 
"Euphrates"  in  A.V.  and  R.V.  is  probably  a  mistake;  the 
Hebrew  has  /"raM,  which  maybe  a  name,  or  a  corrupted  name, 
of  a  place  near  Anathoth,  still  known,  as  our  maps  show,  by  the 
r.ame  Farah.3    It  was  not,  then,  by  the  Euphrates  (which  is  not 

«  W.  Robertson  Smith,  "  The  Prophets  in  Israel,"  p.  389. 

•  We  have  no  more  dignified  equivalent  for  'izor  =  Amb.  'izdr  (on  which 
see  Lane,  "Arabic  Lexicon,"  i.  53  ;  Dozy,  "  Dictionnaire  d^taill6  des  noms 
des  vfitements,"  p.  24,  &c.). 

3  See  Robinson,  "Biblical  Researches,"  li.  288.  Should  not  Froth  bt 
Parah  (Josh,  xviii.  33),  as  Birch  suggests  ("Palestine  Fund  Statement," 
Oct.  i88o,  p.  236)  ? 

IS 


li; 


i6t 


JEREMIAH. 


»),!!  ' 


a  rocky  stream)  that  Jeremiah  hid  his  apron,  but  in  a  rocky  and 
yet  even  in  sumnaer  verdant  retreat,  not  so  far  from  the  fanvjus 
Michmash,  close  to  one  of  the  torrents  which  unite  to  form  the 
Kelt  (Cherith?).  How  he  must  have  suffered  as  he  walked 
alone  to  this  spot,  perhaps  repeating  the  words,  But  if  ye  will 
not  hear  it,  my  soul  shall  weep  in  secret  for  your  pride  (Jer.  xiii. 
17)  ;  or,  Is  this  man  Coniah  a  despised  broken  pot?  is  hi  a 
vessel  wherein  is  no  pleasure?  (Jer.  xxii.  28,  comp.  xiii.  14). 

Soon  after  Jeremiah's  return  the  second  time,  may  we  not 
suppose  that  his  worst  previsions  began  to  be  realized  ?  Up  to 
the  last  he  had  cried,  Hear  ye,  and  give  ear;  but  now — the  De- 
stroyer of  the  nations  is  on  his  ivay.  The  cities  of  the  Southland 
are  shut  up  (blocked  up  with  ruins),  and  the  daughter  of  Zion 
is  left  .  .  .  as  a  besieged  city  (not  yet  beleagured,  but  cut  off 
from  communication  with  the  provinces).'  Neco  seems  at 
length  to  have  despatched  troops  in  aid  of  Judah,  but  it  was  of 
no  avail.  A  part  of  the  Destroyer's  army  was  detached  to  invest 
Jerusalem,  while  he  himself  (probably)  met  and  defeated  the 
Egyptians,  so  \hz\.  the  king  of  E^pt  came  not  again  any  tnore  out 
of  his  land  (2  Kings  xxiv.  7 ) .  The  harvest  is  past,  cried  Jeremiah, 
the  summer  is  ended,  and  we  have  not  been  saved  (Jer.  viii.  20). 
Nebuchadrezzar's  arrival  determined  the  young  king  and  his 
mother  and  his  court  to  surrender  at  discretion  ;  and  the  king 
of  Babylon  took  him  in  the  eighth  year  of  his  reign  (2  Kings 
xxiv.  12).  Never  again  did  Jehoiachin  see  the  land  of  Judah 
or  Judah's  last  great  prophet.  But  was  there  no  mitigation  of 
his  lot  ?  Yes  ;  a  sad  one  indeed,  but  one  for  which  Jehoahaz 
might  have  envied  him.  All  that  was  best  and  worthiest  in  the 
old  capital  city  went  with  Jehoiachin  to  Babylon.  Most  of  the 
trained  warriors  (who  were  doubtless  also  the  proprietors  of  the 
soil),  7000  in  all,  most  of  the  artisans,  amounting  to  1000, 
and  2000  more  heads  of  families,  including  doubtless  many 
refugees  from  the  provinces,  were  carried  away  from  their  own 
dear  hill-country  to  the  monotonous  but  fertile  plain  between  the 
Euphrates  and  the  Tigris.  Of  the  two  greatest  religious  thinkers 
of  that  time,  one  (Ezekiel)  was  taken  and  the  other  (Jeremiah) 
was  left.  The  numbers  indeed  are  not  quite  certain.  Some 
think  that  the  passage,  2  Kings  xxiv.  13, 14,  has  been  misplaced.* 

*  Jer.  xiii.  15,  iv.  6  ;  Isa.  i.  8. 

■  Stade  thinks  that  these  two  verses  properly  refer  to  the  deportation  of 
the  year  586,  and  points  out  that  thry  interrupt  the  flow  of  tlie  narrative 
("  Geschichte,"  p.  680,  and  see  tlie  reference  there  given). 


BRIOHT  VISIONS  IN  THE  DEATH -CHAMBER. 


i6j 


I  do  not  see  that  this  makes  much  difference  (see  vers.  15, 16) ; 
but  the  total  number  of  the  captives  must  have  been  larger  than 
that  mentioned  in  the  narrative.  We  may  be  sure  that  sons 
and  daughters  very  often  (not  always ;  see  Ezek.  xxiv.  3i)  ac- 
companied  their  parents.  This  was  the  beginning  of  the  "  dis* 
plantation  "  (to  use  a  word  of  Sir  Walter  Raleigh's)  of  Judah— 
the  first  great  fulfilment  of  the  ancient  prophecy  in  Isa.  iii.  1-3. 
Let  us  pause  here  to  contrast  the  two  men  thus  strangely 
brought  together  —  Jehoiachin  and  Nebuchadrezzar.  Both 
indeed  are  called  lions,  the  former  in  Ezek.  xix.  6 ;  the  latter 
in  Jer.  iv.  7,  xlix.  19 ;  but  if  Jehoiachin  had  really  shown  a  war- 
like and  ambitious  character,  would  his  offended  overlord  have 
spared  his  life?  From  Jer.  xiii.  18  it  would  almost  seem  that 
he  shared  the  supreme  power  with  his  mother  Nehushta.'  If 
he  did  so,  we  may  be  sure  that  Nehushta  had  the  reality  and  he 
the  semblance  of  power,  according  to  the  old  saying,  A  child  is 
my  peoples  tyrant^  and  women  rule  overit(lsdL.  iii.  12).  Add 
to  this  the  friendly  feelings  which  he  inspired  alike  in  Babylonian 
kings,  contemporary  Hebrew  prophets,  and  the  later  generations 
of  the  Jews,"  and  I  think  we  may  safely  describe  Jehoiachin  as 
a  man  of  mild  and  probably  (even  from  the  higher  point  of  view) 
not  irreligious  character.  I  cannot,  however,  go  to  the  length 
of  ascribing  to  him  (with  Ewald)  the  composition  of  PsaUns 
xlii.i  xliii.,  Ixxxiv. ;  the  "  last  sigh  of  the  royal  exile,"  as  be 
gazed  from  the  hill  above  B4niis,  was  one  of  those  which  "can- 
not be  uttered,"  least  of  all  in  lyric  poems  which  soar  so  high 
into  the  regions  of  faith.  Perhaps,  indeed,  Nebuchadrezzar 
could  have  appreciated  these  psalms  better  than  his  captive. 
Energy  and  force  of  will  sit  upon  the  brows  of  the  young  hero 
in  the  cameo  portrait  of  him  at  Berlin  ;  ^  there  is,  however,  a 

*  Great  stress  is  laid  od  the  fact  tb»t  the  queen-mother  accompanied  her 
■on  into  exile  (see  Jer.  xxii.  36,  x^ux.  a  ;  2  Kings  v\iv.  la,  13). 

*  See  a  Kings  xxv.  97-30 ;  Ezek.  i.  a ;  Lam,  tf.  20 ;  Josephus,  " De 
Bello  Jud."  fi.  a,  t  (where  nn  annual  commei'^vjtion  of  Jehoiachin  is 
spoken  of).  One  of  the  gate.'  0^  Jei  usalcm  bor-:.  ni  name  (Mishna,  "  Mid- 
dOth."  U.  6). 

s  The  type  of  features  might  no  doubt  be  accounted  lor  if  Nebuchad- 
rezzar could  be  shown  to  have  had  (like,  the  Assyrian  king  Shashanq)  an 
Egyptian  mother.  But  Babelon  s  view  (in  the  large  edition  of  Lenormant's 
"Histoire,"  It.  394)  does  violence  to  Herodotus,  who  may  himself  have 
credulously  adopted  a  mere  legend.  On  the  Berlin  portrait,  my  friend  Prof. 
Scbrader  has  learnedly  commented  in  the  "Transactions  of  the  Berlin 
Academy,  1879,"  pp  393-498. 


164 


JEREMIAH. 


L 


S 


refinement  of  feature  which  suggests  that  he  is  above  tht 
savage  inhumanities  of  the  Assyrian  kings.  Even  if  we  hesitate 
to  accept  the  evidence  of  this  portrait,  there  is  the  undeniable 
evidence  of  facts.  Nebuchadrezzar  could  indeed  be  severe 
(Hke  the  Asmonaean  princes  among  the  Jewsj  and  like  the  chival- 
rous Saladin  himself)  to  those  who  rebelled  against  his  divine 
King,*  but  he  willingly  tempered  the  lot  even  of  those  whom 
he  regarded  as  rebels.  He  was  cruel,  according  to  our  ideas, 
to  Zedekiah,  but  that  unhappy  king  had  broken  his  pledged 
word,  and  even  to  Zedekiah  he  was  less  cruel  than  Saladin  to 
Raynald  after  the  battle  of  Hattin.  How  gentle  he  was  to  the 
Jews  left  in  Judah,  and  how  respectful  to  Jeremiah  in  particular, 
the  sequel  of  this  story  will  show.  "  Such  treatment,"  remarks 
an  American  Assyriologist,'  "is  a  beautiful  contrast  to  the  way  in 
which  Saul  or  David  would  have  dealt "  [four  centuries  earlier]. 
Both  these  men,  therefore,  come  out  better  in  a  historical 
picture  than  they  did  in  the  Scripture  handbooks  of  our  youth. 
The  shock,  so  far  as  Nebuchadrezzar's  character  is  concerned, 
will  be  mitigated  by  remembering  that  Jeremiah  honoured  him 
as  "  Jehovah's  Servant,"  a  distinction  which  carries  more  weight 
than  the  blame  of  a  too  patriotic,  too  sanguine  contemporary, 
Habakkuk3(Hab.  i.  13). 

*  For  a  case  in  point,  see  Jer.  xxix.  aa.  The  punishment  referred  to  thera 
was  not  arbitrarily  chosen,  but  common  both  in  Assyria  and  in  Babylonia 
(see  "  Records  of  the  Past,"  ix.  56 ;  and  comp.  Bertin  in  "  Babylonian  and 
Onental  Record,"  vol.  i.  No.  a). 

"  Prof.  Lyon,  "  Israelitish  Politics,"  p.  xo. 

3  That  "  the  wicked  "  here  means  the  Babylonians  collectively  Is  certaio* 
But  we  must  not  with  Hooker,  in  his  second  sermon,  give  the  same  sense 
to  "  the  wicked "  in  Hab.  i.  4,  wlJch,  u  ibn  oootflxt  shows,  means  tha 
lawless  mes  in  Jenisalem. 


Ze 


If 
in 
fe 

el 
la 

Si 

// 
I 

\ 
t 

\ 


CHAPTER  VL 


tr  THOU  HADST  KNOWN,  EVEN  THOU  I 


&  ; 


ZedeMah  ;  his  accession  and  character— Ezekiel,  the  prophet  of  the  exiles— 
The  lower  prophets  at  home  and  in  Babylonia— Zedekiah's  revolt- 
First  siege  of  Jerusalem — Imprisonment  of  Jeremiah— His  purchase  of 
family-property — He  is  again  in  danger  of  his  life — Cast  into  the 
cistern — Ebedmelech's  help— Fall  of  Jerusalem— Book  of  Lamenta* 
tion. 

In  spite  of  his  virtual  abdication,  Jehoiachin  (like  Edward  II. 
in  Berkeley  Castle)  still  wore  a  crown,  at  least  in  the  eyes  of  his 
fellow-exiles.  Doubtless  they  bewailed  his  hard  fate,  and  the 
elegy,  based  probably  on  a  popular  son;^  in  which  Ezekiel 
laments  over  "the  princes  of  Israel,"  contains  this  verse  on  the 
sad  termination  of  Jehoiachin's  reign, — 

And  they  put  him  into  a  cage  with  hooks ^  and  brought  hint  to 
the  king  of  Babylon^  that  his  voice  might  no  longer  be  heard  u^on 
the  mountains  of  Israel  (Ezek.  xix.  9). 

Deeply  too  must  Ezekiel,  and  all  true  priests  and  worshippers, 
have  mourned  their  removal  from  the  holy  city,  though  as  yet 
sobs  must  have  stifled  the  utterance  of  their  grief.  Not  less 
bitter  must  have  been  the  mourning  in  Jerusalem,  not  only  for 
the  material  losses  to  church*  and  state,  but  for  the  vanished 
familiar  faces.  What  an  official  mourning  meant  to  a  Semitic 
race,  we  know  from  the  cuneiform  inscriptions  ;  and  what  a 
national  mourning  was  in  Judah,  the  last  sad  page  of  Josiah's 

*  The  temple  vessels,  remarks  Ewald,  were  the  things  most  regretted  at 
Jerusalem  in  the  :  ext  few  years.  Comp.  s  Kings  xxiv.  13  with  Jer.  xxvii« 
t6,  x8-a2,  xxviii.  3-6,  Dan.  i.  2,  v.  a,  &c.,  Baruch  i.  8. 


i66 


JEREMIAH. 


|i .,' 


'  Ij 

!l 

story  tells  us.  This  new  lamentation  was  a  national  on« 
indeed. 

A  phantom-king  had  meantime  been  set  up  by  Nebuchad- 
rezzar,  but  his  want  of  maturity  of  character  must  already  have 
excited  the  fears  of  religious  patriots  both  at  home  and  in 
Babylon.  His  name  was  Mattaniah — he  was  "Jehovah's  gift" 
to  Josiah  in  the  memorable  year  of  the  finding  of  the  lawbook  ; 
but  on  his  elevation  to  the  throne  he  was  allowed  to  take  the 
name  Zedekiah  or  Zidkia/  t.g.,  "Jehovah  is  righteousness." 
Was  he  already  (like  his  namesake  in  Jer.  xxix.  22)  cherishing 
dreams  of  a  "  righteous  "  interposition  of  Jehovah  for  Israel,  or 
even  applying  to  himself  the  great  prophecy  of  the  Branch 
(rather,  Shoot)  in  Jer.  xxiii.  5,  6  ? 

I  doubt  it ;  the  name  of  this  poor  roifainiant  (see  Jer.  xxxviii. 
5)  must  have  been  chosen  for  him  by  others.  Personally,  he 
would  have  been  content  with  the  "base  kingdom"  given  him 
(Ezek.  xvii.  14).  It  was  not  repugnant  to  him  to  be  like  a  vine 
trailing  along  the  ground  (such  as  any  one  may  see  in  the 
Lebanon),  watered,  as  it  were,  by  the  favour  of  Babyloji ; 
Ezekiel's  parable,  so  far  as  he  was  concerned,  might  have  been 
comprised  in  the  first  six  verses  of  his  seventeenth  chapter.  It 
was  Zedekiah's  *'  environment "  (if  we  ma>  use  a  word  of  recent 
coinage)  which  was  the  chief  source  of  his  trouble.  The  Jewish 
princes  may  have  had  their  faults,  but  at  any  rate  they  formed 
a  true  aristocracy  ;  and  when  most  of  them  had  been  removed 
to  Babylon,  it  was  as  if  a  fair  garden-land  Qer.  ii.  7  Heb.)  had 
been  robbed  of  all  its  good  fruit  (Jer.  xxiv.).  There  was  no 
wisdom  left  to  direct,  no  strength  to  carry  outj  no  moral  prin- 
ciple among  the  governors  or  the  governed.  Woe  unto  the 
shepherds^  cries  Jeremiah  to  the  wretched  "  ])rinc'is  "  of  this 
period  (Jer.  xxiii.  i,  2).  All  the  old  evils  had,  under  their 
utterly  selfish  rule,  suddenly  gathered  to  a  head  ;  both  prophet 
and  priest  are  profane  s  yea^  in  my  house  have  I  found  their 
wickedness^  saith  Jehovah  (Jer.  xxiii.  11).  Jeremiah  alludes  to 
practices  specially  inconsistent  with  the  holy  place,  and  one  of 
the  Jewish  captives  explains  what  they  were  (Ezek.  viii. ;  comp. 
V,  II,  and  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  14).  There  was — i,  an  image  of 
Ash^rah  ;  2,  totemistic  animal  emblems  on  the  wallofatemple- 

*  Zidkia  was  the  name  of  a  king  of  Ashkelon  in  Hezekiah's  time  (se« 
Schroder  on  Josh.  xiii.  3).  What  the  relation  is  between  the  Tsmelitish 
Yahveh  and  the  Canaanitish  Yahu,  I  will  not  attempt  to  decide. 


ir  THOU  HADST  KNOWN,  EVEN  THOU  1 


167 


chamber  ;  3,  weeping  for  "  Thammuz  yearly  wounded " ;  4, 
sun-worship  and  the  rite  of  holding  up  "  the  twig  "  to  the  nose.' 
Side  by  side  with  these  heathenish  usages,  some  of  them  of  a 
lev;  type,  there  was  the  self-righteousness  and  formalism  of  a 
large  number  of  Jehovah's  worshippers,  who  still  .rusted  in  the 
inviolable  sanctity  of  the  temple,  and  perhaps  thought  that,  in 
spite  of  a  few  violations  of  the  Law,*  they  could  still  claim  the 
fulfilment  of  Deuteronomic  promises.  The  popular  discontent 
was  fanned  by  the  arrival  of  ambassadors  from  the  neighbouring 
nations,  who  had  come  to  draw  Judah  into  a  confederation 
against  the  common  foe.^  Jeremiah  thought  that  he  could  give 
no  better  expression  to  the  Divine  warnings  entrusted  to  him 
than  by  a  symbolic  act  like  that  ascribed  to  Isaiah  in  Isa.  xx.  2. 
This  was  probably  in  the  fourth  year  of  Zedekiah  (comp.  Jer. 
xxvii.  I,  "  Var.  Bible,"  xxviii.  i),  the  year  to  which  chap,  xxviii. 
refers  the  episode  of  Hananiah  "the  prophet,"  who  with  a  light 
heart  made  promises  in  Jehovah's  name,  inconsistent  with  the 
moral  condition  of  the  people,  and  therefore  not  to  be  realized. 
It  was  Jeremiah's  own  symbolic  action  which  in  the  same  sign- 
speech  Hananiah  contradicted  ;  the  prophetic  denunciation  of 
the  former  followed  the  next  day,  and  was  literally  fulfilled. 
Perhaps  this  awful  fact  gave  a  temporary  weight  to  Jeremiah's 
warnings.  At  any  rate  Zedekiah  became  anxious  to  dissipate 
the  rumours  of  his  infidelity,  and  either  journeyed  himself  or 
sent  an  embassy  to  Babylon  to  give  fresh  assurances  to  his 
strict  overlord.    According  to  Jer.  li.  59-64,  it  was  on  this  oc- 

'  This  reminds  us  of  a  precept  respecting  a  twig  called  bareima  in  a 
Zoroastrian  Scripture  ('*  Vendidad  "  xix.  64),  and  of  a  custom  (Sir  Monier 
Williams  says  that  it  still  exists  among  the  Parsees)  of  holding  up  a  veil  to 
prevent  impurities  of  breath  from  passing  into  the  sacred  fire. 

*  I  do  not  think  we  can  take  all  Ezekiel's  descriptions  of  the  heathenism 
of  Judah  in  their  most  obvious  sense.  Ezek.  viii.  seems  to  say  that  the 
"  high-places  "  were  resorted  to  in  Zedekiah's  reign  ;  but  surely  he  throws 
himself  back  into  Manasseh's  reign,  the  abominations  of  which  he  cannot 
recall  without  a  deeply  felt  woe,  woe  unto  thee  (Ezek.  xvi.  33  ;  comp.  a 
Kings  xxiv.  3). 

3  It  has  been  supposed  that  troubles  in  Elam  may  have  favoured  theso 
projects  of  revolt.  But,  as  Tiele  remarks,  in  the  division  of  the  Assyrian 
empire  Elam  (or  the  Assyrian  claims  upon  Elam)  passed  to  Media.  Tha 
conqueror  pointed  to  in  Jer.  xlix.  34-39  may  be  Teispes  [Tsheispa)  of  the 
Acbaemenid  family,  the  ancestor  of  Cyrus  II.  and  Darius  Hystaspis,  of 
whom  Jeremiah  may  have  heard  through  the  Jewish  exiles  in  Babylon 
("Babylonisch-assyrisch  Gescbichtc     p.  435}, 


\  i 


!i 


1 

;-r 

■ 

'•■i\. 

;i 

\i  ] 


ii 


tj 


i68 


JEREMIAH. 


casion  tUat  Jeremiah  committerl  the  long  propLecy  in  Jer.  1.,  IL 
to  the  friendly  prince  Seraiah,  who,  after  recitiiiig  it,  was  to  biad 
it  to  a  stone  and  cast  it  into  the  Euphrates,  with  the  words  of 
doom,  T/ius  shall  Babylon  fall.  I  have  elsewhere  given  the 
reasons  for  holding  these  chapters  to  be  wrongly  ascribed  to 
our  prophet,'  just  as  Isa.  xl.-!xvi.  and  certain  parts  of  Isa.  i.- 
xxxvi.  are  erroneously  assigned  to  Isaiah.  They  furnish  a  wel> 
come  addition  to  our  already  large  collection  of  literaiy  products 
dating  from  the  close  of  the  Exile. 

Let  us  pause  a  moment,  for  this  reference  to  Jer.  1.,  li.  suggests 
the  thought  of  the  great  intellectual  refreshing  for  which  Israel's 
genius  was  indebted  to  the  sojourn  in  Babylonia.  The  first 
great  writer  of  this  period  began  his  career  in  the  year  follow- 
ing Zedekiah's  journey  or  embassy.  After  passing  his  first  four 
years  of  expatriation  by  one  of  the  many  canals  of  the  Euphrates 
(called  the  Chebar),  Ezekiel  the  priest  saw  divine  visions  (Ezek. 
i.  i),  and  came  forward  among  a  people,  whose  God  seemed  to 
it  to  have  been  defeated,  to  show  how  great  and  wondrous  and 
righteous  and  yet  merciful  Jehovah  was.  With  this  object  in 
view,  he  scrupled  not  to  press  into  his  service  the  novel  and 
stupendous  imagery  of  Babylonia,  and  became  a  great  imagi- 
native writer.  But  alas  1  his  fellow  exiles  "  refused  to  hear  the 
voice  of  the  charmer  ; "  the  poetry  of  Ezekiel  was  too  enig- 
matical and  his  prose  too  coldly  judicial  in  tone  to  produce 
much  immediate  impression.  His  influence,  like  Jeremiah's, 
was  most  felt  by  individuals  ;  his  conception  of  religion,  though 
churchly,  was  also  individualistic,  and  it  was  his  task  to  gather 
out  of  the  corrupt  mass  those  who  might  in  time  form  the 
nucleus  of  a  Jewish  Church.  As  a  poet,  he  has  sometimes  been 
overrated  ;  it  is  absurd  to  compare  him,  with  De  Quincey,  to 
iEschylus.  As  a  teacher,  he  has  been  equally  underrated.  He 
owes,  indeed,  much  to  Jeremiah,  whose  very  phrases,  as  Movers 
has  shown  (in  his  work  on  the  two  recensions  of  Jeremiah,  part 
iii.  sect.  i6),  he  sometimes  reproduces,  but  he  has  added  much 
from  his  own  Spirit-led  meditations.  His  book  is  more  dis- 
tinctly literary  than  those  ieft  by  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  but, 
though  written  long  after  the  latter  had  passed  away,  is  of  the 


*  Orelli,  a  good  scholar,  still  holds  cut  agahist  this  result  of  criticism. 
But  this  half-hearted  critic  regards  Isa.  i.  -xxxvi.  as  altogether  the  woilc  of 
Isaiah  I 


IF  THOU  HADST  KNOWN,  EVEN  THOU  1 


169 


a«cy  in  Jer.  I.,  li. 
ig  it,  was  to  biad 
'ith  the  words  of 
where  given  the 
tigly  ascribed  to 
parts  of  Isa.  i.- 
!y  furnish  a  wel> 
iteraiy  products 

er.  1.,  li.  suggests 
or  which  Israel's 
onia.     The  first 
the  year  follow- 
ing his  first  four 
of  the  Euphrates 
ne  visions  (Ezek. 
:  God  seemed  to 
d  wondrous  and 
ith  this  object  in 
e  the  novel  and 
!  a  great  imagi- 
"used  to  hear  the 
:1  was  too  cnig- 
one  to  produce 
like  Jeremiah's, 
religion,  though 
is  task  to  gather 
time  form  the 
sometimes  been 
De  Quincey,  to 
inderrated.    He 
ases,  as  Movers 
■Jeremiah,  part 
as  added  much 
>k  is  more  dis- 
Jeremiah,  but, 
away,  is  of  the 

«sa]t  of  criticism. 
ether  the  woiic  of 


utmost  value  for  the  period  which  we  are  studying  ;  would  that 
my  limits  permitted  me  to  draw  more  from  it  1 

How  constant  the  intercourse  was  between  Jerusalem  and  the 
Jewish  colonies  in  Babylonia,  we  may  see,  not  only  from  Ezekiel, 
but  from  Jeremiah.  In  Jer.  xxix.  we  have  the  substance  of  a 
letter  sent  by  Jeremiah  through  two  royal  officials  to  the  exiles, 
exhorting  them  to  resign  themselves  to  the  will  of  God,  and  obey 
their  foreign  lords,  in  spite  of  the  misleading  advice  of  the  lower 
prophets.  On  the  receipt  of  this,  one  of  the  latter  wrote  letters 
to  the  Jews  at  home,  especially  to  Pashhur's  successor  in  the 
office  of  "  second  priest,"  named  Zephaniah,  but  only  to  his  own 
confusion.  Build  ye  houses^  and  dwell  in  them;  and  plant 
gardens^  and  eat  the  fruit  of  them,  .  .  .  and  seek  the  welfare  of 
the  city  whither  I  have  sent  you  as  captives,  and  pray  unto 
Jehovah  for  ity — such  was  Jeremiah's  advice,  Nebuchadrezzar 
was,  at  present,  Jehovah's  commissioned  Servant  (Jer.  xxvii.  6), 
and  as  Bossuet  says,  applying  Jer.  xxvii.  to  Oliver  Cromwell, 
"  Quand  ce  grand  Dieu  a  choisi  quelqu'un  pour  etre  1  instrument 
de  ses  desseins,  rien  n'arrSte  le  cours ;  ou  il  enchaine,  ou  il 
aveugle,  ou  il  dompte  tout  ce  qui  est  capable  de  resistance."*  If 
the  Jews  could  only  be  persuaded  of  this,  there  might  yet  be 
two  Judahs,  a  greater  and  a  lesser  ;  the  one  in  Babylonia,  the 
other  in  Judah — to  be  reur  ed  after  seventy  years,"  by  which  is 
perhaps  meant  a  long  and  definite  period  (comp.  Jer.  xxv.  1 1, 
xxix.  10,  with  Jer.  xxvii.  ,1.  It  appears  certain  that  chaps. 
xxvii.-xxix.  have  not  cons  down  to  us  as  their  author  left  them 
(among  other  peculiarities,  note  the  spelling  Nebuchadnezzar  3) ; 
the  section  xxvii.  16-2  ought  certainly  to  be  restored  to  its 
original  purity  from  the  Septuagint.*  But  the  historical  state- 
ments of  the  chaptt  ^  ..re  above  suspicion.  How  interesting, 
although  painful,  are  the  notices  of  prophets  like  Hananiah, 
who  was  not  exactly  a  "  false  prophet  "  as  the  Septuagint  calls 
him  (Jer.  xxxv.  i),  but  r.uher  a  fallen  prophet,  one  who  devoted 

«  "  On^!son  funfebre  de  Henriette  Marie  de  France,  reine  d'Angleterre." 

•  "Seventy  "  is  a  symbolic  number  both  in  Jeremiah  and,  partly  at  least, 
in  "  Daniel "  (Dan.  ix.  24) 

s  "  Nebuchadrezzar"  oniy  occurs  once  in  these  three  chapters  (Jer.  xxix. 
ai).  The  only  other  places  where  "  Nebuchadnezzar"  occurs  in  Jeremiali 
are  xxxiv.  i  and  xxxix.  5. 

*  See  Movers'  I^tin  treatise  on  the  recensions  o\  Jeremiah,  part  ii.  sect. 
13 ;  Matthes.  Modern  Review,  1884,  p.  428. 


H'ii 


■ 

f  - 

i 

1; 

: 

1    '■ 

. 

!'■:                    ' 

lit 

1? 

170 


JEREMIAH. 


In     ^. 


his  natural  prophetic  gifts  to  the  service  of  a  Jehovah  who  wai 
not  the  true  one,  because  not  "  the  God  who  ruleth  in  righteous- 
ness," and  who  had  ''  sent "  Jeremiah  to  warn  His  people  of  their 
too  sure  punishment.  Stationary  or  retrograde  prophets  could 
only  do  harm  to  Israel.  Hence  Lzekiel  compares  such  to  jackals 
burrowing  in  ruins,  and  says  that  in  fostering  Israel's  blind  self> 
love,  they  do  but  give  a  coating  of  plaster  to  mud-walls  (Ezek. 
xtii.  4,  lo).  No  good  word  can  either  Jeremiah  or  Ezekiel  find 
to  say  for  them,  and  the  only  palliation  of  their  conduct  is  that 
though  the  true  Jehovah  kat/t  not  sent  them,  and,  as  we  are  told, 
hath  deceived  (or,  enticed)  them,  they  expect  the  confirmation  of 
the  oracle  (Ezek.  xiii.  6,  xiv.  9.) — they  are  honest  though  mis- 
guided enthusiasts.'  Why,  indeed,  may  not  such  prophets, 
however  blameable,  as  having  fallen  from  their  "  high  calling  of 
God,"  yet  have  been  fanatically  sincere  in  their  patriotism  and 
their  religion  ?  Superficially  regarded,  does  their  prophesying 
differ  from  that  of  Isaiah  in  some  of  his  discourses  (comp. 
Hananiah's  expressions  in  Jer.  xxviii.  11  with  those  of  Isa.  x.  25, 
xxix.  17)  ?  If  this  leading  prophet  refused  to  *'  bate  ajot  of  heart 
or  hope"  in  Judah's  extremity,  and  grew  still  bolder  in  faith, 
why  should  not  his  successors  copy  him  in  this  respect }  The 
answer  is,  that  Isaiah's  encouraging  promises  were  combined 
with  a  resolute  maintenance  of  the  highest  moral  standard, 
whereas  our  only  authorities  distinctly  assert  that  the  lower 
prophets  (and,  as  one  of  them  says,  prophetesses)  of  their  time 
lived  evil  lives  themselves,  and  "  strengthened  the  hands  of  the 
wicked"  (Jer.  xxiii.  14,  xxix.  23;  Ezek.  xiii.  19,  22).  If,  like 
Habakkuk  a  few  years  earlier,  they  had  been  equally  earnest 
for  moral  and  for  political  salvation,  Jeremiah  and  Ezekidl 
would  not  have  opposed  them  so  bitterly  as  "conspirators" 
(Ezek.  xxii.  25)  against  the  common  weal.  May  we  take  all 
their  vehement  expressions  literally  ?  It  matters  not ;  whatever 
the  lower  prophets  were  in  private,  they  neglected  their  public 
duty  when  they  might  perhaps  have  saved  the  state.  And 
though  the  exiles  as  a  body  may  have  been  superior  to  the 
home-community  (comp.  Ezek.  xiv.  22,  23),  there  is  no  evidence 
that  the  prophets  of  Babylonia  were  wiser  or  better  than  their 
fellows  at  Jerusalem. 

«  For  a  fair  view  of  these  lower  prophets,  see  Rowland  Williams, 
"  Hebrew  i*rophets,"  ii.  56,  57,  and  Mntthes'  vahiable  monograph  "Da 
pseudoprophetismo  Hebrseorum"  (Lugd.  Bat.  1859). 


who  wai 

righteous- 
le  of  their 
lets  could 
to  jackals 
)lind  self< 
alls  (Ezelc. 
zekiel  find 
net  is  that 
e  are  told, 
rmation  of 
ough  mis- 
prophets, 
I  calling  of 
iotism  and 
ophesying 
>es  (comp. 
Isa.  X.  25, 
ot  of  heart 
r  in  faith, 
ect  ?    The 
combined 
standard, 
the  lower 
their  time 
inds  of  the 
.     If,  like 
lly  earnest 
d  Ezekiti 
•pirators  " 
e  take  all 
whatever 
eir  public 
te.     And 
ior  to  the 
'  evidence 
han  their 


Williams, 
:raph  "D« 


IP  THOU  HADST  KNOWN,  EVEN  THOU  ! 


171 


I 


I 


"  Like  prophet,  like  people,"  we  may  say,  applying  Hos.  iv.  9. 
It  is  clear  that,  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  higher  religion, 
the  Jews  both  at  home  and  in  Babylonia  had  not  been  brought 
nearer  to  God  by  calamity,  but  driven  farther  from  Him.  Sin- 
gularly enough,  whereas  it  is  prosperity  which  too  often  makes 
us  forget  God,  it  is  adversity  which  had  this  effect  among  the 
early  Jews,  brought  up  in  the  narrow  belief  that  Israel's  God 
was  bound  ^o  be  Israel's  protector.  God  had  His  own  pur- 
poses, however ;  Ezekiel  believes  in  the  '•  new  covenant "  as  much 
as  Jeremiah  (Ezek.  xi.  19,  ?,o,  xxxvi.  25-27),  and  knows  that  the 
next  generation  will  confess,  //  is  good  for  me  that  I  have  been 
afflicted  {^S2l.  cxix.  71).  But  the  vine-stock  of  ancient  Israel, 
halt-consumed  already,  has  no  possibility  of  usefulness.  Let  it 
be  again  consign'  i  >  the  purifying  flames  (Exek.  xv).  Did 
the  Jews  believe  tl)  No  ;  they  only  said,  Doth  he  not  make 
fine  parables  (Ezek.  xx.  49)  ?  Was  there  not  a  new  Pharaoh, 
whom  men  praised  already  for  his  energy  and  ambition  (Uahibri, 
called  Hophra  in  the  Hebrew  of  Jer.  xliv.  30,  Ola^ptj  in  the  Sept., 
'Airpitfc  in  Herodotus) .''  So  the  people  had  their  way,  and  Zede- 
kiah  rebelled  against  Babylon,  Tyre  and  Amnion  joining  him, 
and  Egypt  promising  "  horses  and  much  people"  (Ezek.  xvii. 
1 5).  At  once  Nebuchadrezzar  takes  the  field,  but  against  which 
adversary  ?  He  stands  where  the  ways  divide  to  use  divination ; 
he  shuffles  the  arrows '  (Ezek.  xxi.  21),  and  decides  for  Jerusalem. 
How  could  he  hesitate  ?  Strategically  the  capture  of  Jerusalem 
was  too  impor*ant  to  be  postponed.  In  January  587  the  siege 
began.  Had  Zedekiah  done  nothing  to  avert  this  ?  No ;  the 
experience  of  Jehoiakim  was  repeated.  They  have  blown  the 
trumpet,  and  made  all  ready  j  but  none  goeth  to  the  battle  (Ezek. 
vii.  14).  An  attempt  was  indeed  made  to  increase  the  number 
of  Jerusalem's  defenders,  by  reviving  a  neglected  law,  not  long 
since  adopted  and  expanded  in  Deuteronomy,  which  directed 
that  every  enslaved  Hebrew  or  Hebrewess  should  be  emanci. 
pated  after  seven  years.  To  atone  for  their  previous  neglect,  the 
princes  did  more  than  fulfil  this  law,  for  they  set  all  their  slaves 
and  handmaids  free.  And  behold  !  a  wonder  happens,  which 
seems  like  a  blessing  upon  their  obedience,  and  a  repetition  of 
the  great  deliverance  in  Hezekiah's  reign.  The  approach  of  an 
Egyptian  army  compelled  Nebuchadrezzar  to  raise  the  siege, 

•  See  Lyall,  "  Ancient  Arabian  Poetry,"  p.  106;  Lenormant,  "La  iivi- 
nation,"  p.  18  \  Wellhausen,  "Skizzen,"  iii.  137. 


i|i{ 


I 


179 


JEREMIAH. 


V 


11 


a  ^i 


i';' 


and  go  to  meet  it.  In  vain  did  Jcreminh  try  to  sober  the  excited 
minds  of  his  people.  At  once  the  frecdmen  were  enslaved 
again,  and  the  one  true  patriot — Jeremiah — was  arrr?tcfl  at  one 
of  the  city-gates  on  a  charge  of  "  falling  away  to  the  Chalda:ans." 
The  poor  weak  king  had  probably  nothing  to  do  with  cither 
transaction  (comp.  Jer.  xxxiv.  8  with  ?/.  15).  Certainly  he  had 
a  superstitious  veneration  for  Jeremiah,  to  whom  he  had  rot 
long  before  sent  a  deputation  of  priests,  hoping  to  obtain  through 
him  another  "wonderful  work"  like  that  granted  of  old  to  the 
prayers  of  Isaiah.'  The  excuse  for  tliose  who  arrested  Jeremiah 
on  a  false  charge  is  that  the  prophet  had  actually  said  (Jer.  xxi. 
9),  //e  that  goeth  away  and  falleth  away  to  the  Chaldceans,  he 
shall  live;  and  judging  him  by  the  ordinary  standard,  was  it 
not  (so  his  accusers  may  have  said)  only  too  clear  that  he  was 
basely  deserting  his  post  in  the  hour  of  danger  ?  The  grounds 
were  doubtless  insuflficient ;  for  had  not  the  Chaldceans  raised 
the  siege  ?  But  the  prophet's  old  friends  among  the  princes 
were  now  in  Babylonia,  and  he  was  as  helpless  before  his  low- 
minded  adversaries  as  a  suspected  aristocrat  before  a  French 
revolutionary  tribunal.  He  was  consigned  to  an  unhealthy 
prison,  until  the  king,  with  whom,  upon  the  return  of  the 
Chaldasans,  he  had  a  private  interview,  gave  orders  for  his 
removal  to  the  "  court  of  the  guard,"  which  adjoined  the  palace 
(Jer.  xxxii.  2,  comp.  Neh.  iii.  25).  Soon  after  this,  he  received 
a  visit  from  his  cousin  Hanameel,  who,  strange  to  say,  invited 
him  at  this  dark  moment  to  purchase  the  family  property  at 
Anathoth.  To  Jeremiah  this  was  clearly  the  hand  of  God.  He 
called  witnesses,  paid  the  price  of  the  land,  had  the  purchase- 
deed  prepared,  subscribed  and  sealed  it,  and  then  gave  it  to 
Baruch  to  keep  securely,  and  all  this  in  spite  of  a  mental  struggle 
which  even  he,  the  prophet  of  the  "  new  covenant," "  could  not 
escape.  Yes  ;  even  after  his  great  victory  on  Carmel,  Elijah 
must  have  his  doubting  time  in  the  wilderness,  and  Jeremiah's 
bright  visions  must  once  more  be  renewed  to  him  in  his  cap- 

*  To  obtain  a  full  account  of  this  episode,  we  should,  with  Stade,  connect 
Jer.  xxi.  i,  2,  xxxvii.  4-10,  xxi.  4-14.  The  more  original  form  of  the 
prophecy  is  that  given  in  Jer.  xxxvii.  7-10. 

'  The  form  of  cliap.  xxxi.  may  licie  and  there  [e.g.  in  v.  15,  on  which  see  my 
note)  have  been  affected  by  later  c.\[)crience3  ;  but  the  kernelof  tlie  prophecy 
I  re^^aid  as  earUer.  How  can  we  understand  liis  prophecies  or  accouri 
fov  hi»  vlevelojnuent  otherwise  ? 


IF  TIIOU  HADST  KNOWN,  EVEN  THOU  I 


173 


\he  excited 

enslaved 
I'Pfl  at  one 
palMcTans." 
ith  cither 
ly  he  had 
had  rot 
n  through 
old  to  1  lie 
feremiah 
(Jer.  xvi. 
^dceans,  lie 
rd,  was  it 
at  he  was 
i  grounr's 
ms  raised 
le  princes 
e  his  low- 
a  French 
unhealthy 
n   of  the 
s  for  his 
he  palace 
;  recei\  ed 
y,  invited 
operty  at 
lod.     He 
>iirchase- 
ave  it  to 
strnnrrrle 
ould  not 
1,  Elijah 
remiah's 
his  cap- 

\  connect 
m  of  the 

ih  see  my 

prophecy 
accouri 


tfvity.  So  once  again  he  is  assured  that  a  new  and  better 
covenant  will  be  given  to  Israel,  and  that  as  one  consequence 
of  this,  houses  and  fields  and  vineyards  shall  yet  again  be  bought 
in  this  land  (Jer.  xxxii.  15). 

So  the  days  went  by  'u\  prayer  ard  prophecy  (notice  the  con- 
nexion of  these  in  Jer.  xxxiii.  3)  and  intercourse  with  those  who 
like  Zedekiah  retained  some  belief  In  the  prophet.  Rut  the 
bitter  end  of  the  struggle  was  visibly  approaching,  and  the 
princes,  to  whom  the  defence  of  the  city  was  committed, 
thought  that  Jeremiah  was  playing  an  unpatriotic  part  by 
counselling  surrender.  We  can  hardly  wonder  at  this.  Rightly 
or  wrongly,  the  princes  had  decided  on  reiistance,  and  felt 
bound  to  enforce  at  any  rate  silent  acquiescence.  Surely  any 
modern  government  would  do  the  like.  Jeremiah  had  '*  de- 
spaired, not  merely  of  his  country,  which  any  man  may  in- 
nocently do  :  but  also  for  her,  which  no  man  has  a  right  to  do  " 
(if  I  may  apply  Thirlwall's  words,  spoken  of  Phocion),  at  least 
from  the  point  of  view  of  a  politician.  We,  who  are  free  from 
their  illusions,  can  pity  the  princes,  and  partly  even  respect  them. 
But  still  more  can  we  respect  and  admire  the  prophet.  Alone 
among  these  desperate  men  he  persisted  in  advocating  what 
was  then  the  only  '*  way  of  life  "  (Jer.  xxi.  8),  though,  as 
Niebuhr  remarks,  he  would  doubtless  have  spoken  differently 
in  the  days  of  the  Maccabees.  Such  lonely  heroism  was  worthy 
of  a  type  of  Christ.  Imagine  the  scene  ;  recall  the  faces  in 
Munkacsy's  "Christ  before  Pilate,"  and  compare  the  psalmist's 
words  in  Psa.  xxii.  12-17  (written  perhaps  with  more  thought 
of  Jeremiah's  trouble).  Neither  Christ  nor  Jeremiah  could 
soften  unwelcome  truths  nor,  at  the  supreme  crisis,  look  to  God 
to  hide  him  from  his  enemies  (comp.  Jer.  xxxvi.  26,  Luke  iv.  30). 
Jeremiah  fell  a  victim  to  his  cowardly  foes— "cowardly"  I  call 
them,  because  they  were  too  superstitious  to  kill  Jeremiah,  as 
Jehoiakim  killed  Urijah  ;  they  would  rather  that  famine  should 
do  their  work  for  them.  So,  like  Joseph  in  the  fine  old  story, 
he  was  cast  into  a  cistern,  and  Jeremiah  sunk  in  the  mire  (Jer. 
xxxviii.  6). 

Now,  thought  the  princes,  we  may  safely  forget  Jeremiah. 
But  they  overlooked  one  thing,  that  the  cistern  was  near  the 
palace,  and  that  about  the  king's  person  were  some  who  by  the 
accident  of  birth  were  free  from  the  prejudices  of  Israelites. 
(Need  I  say  that  none  of  the  cisterns  under  the  floor  of  the  so- 


174 


JEREMIAH. 


t''  ' 


i  ; 


m 


1} ' 


iS 


called  Grotto  of  Jeremiah  can  be  that  intended,  for  the  simplest 
topographical  reasons  ;' mediceval  traditionalists  have  indeed 
much  to  answer  for  !)  Assistance  prompt,  courageous,  and  effec- 
tual V  as  on  ;  s  way  when  the  prophet  least  thought  it.  Three  men 
("thirty,"  Jer.  xxxviii.  lo,  is  a  scribe's  error),  with  "old  cast 
clouts"  to  ease  Jeremiah  where  the  cords  might  cut  him,  were 
sent  to  draw  him  up  out  of  the  cistern.  That  darlc  form  which 
bends  over  the  pit  is,  not  the  angel  of  death,  but  a  friendly  Ethi- 
opian who  has  used  his  influence  with  the  king  in  favour  of  the 
prophet.  His  true  name  we  know  not ;  he  passed  among  the 
Jews  as  "  King's  slave  " — Ebedmelech  ;  but  he  ranks  in  the 
Bible  with  the  eunuch  of  queen  Candace  (Acts  viii.  27)  as  one 
who  feared  God  and  was  accepted  by  Him.  "  Can  the  Ethiopian 
change  his  skinf^^  (Jer.  xiii.  23).  True  ;  but  where  is  white- 
ness of  soul  to  be  found— in  Ebedmelech  or  in  the  Jewish 
princes  ?  in  Livingstone's  tender-hearted  African  bearers  or  in 
the  Arab  slave-merchants  ?  Jeremiah  at  any  rate  knew  who 
was  his  true  "  neighbour."  A  short  prophecy  in  his  works  is 
devoted  to  Ebedmelech,  closing  with  the  words  (with  which 
compare  Psa.  xxxvii.  40),  because  thou  hast  put  thy  trust  in  me 
(Jer.  xxxix.  18). 

One  person  there  was  whose  "feet  were  sunk  in  a  mire'* 
worse  than  that  of  Jeremiah's  cistern  ;  this  was  king  Zedekiah. 
His  character  at  this  period  seems  a  bundle  of  inconsistencies. 
He  deserves  credit  for  bravery  in  sitting  at  the  gate  of  Benja- 
min, where  Ebedmelech  found  him  (Jer.  xxxviii.  7) ;  for  this, 
being  in  the  north  of  the  city,  was  the  point  most  exposed  to 
the  besiegers.  He  has  also  relieved  himself  from  the  imputa- 
tion of  cruelty  by  assenting  to  the  transference  of  Jeremiah 
from  the  cistern  to  his  old  safe  lodgings.  But  he  is  now  to  be 
tested  again  for  the  last  time,  and  fails  shamefully.  /  am  afraid 
of  the  Jews  that  are  fallen  away  to  the  Chaldaans^  lest  they  {i.e.^ 
the  latter)  deliver  me  into  their  hand^  and  they  mock  me  (Jer. 
xxxviii.  19).  What  unkingly  cowardice  and  selfishness  !  Why 
should  Zedekiah  fear  taunts  or  ill-treatment  from  these  deserters, 
when  he  would  rather  deserve  thanks,  for  having  justified  their 
own  course  of  action  ?  And  how  could  he  think  of  himself  when 
the  fate  of  his  country  and,  as  it  might  seem,  of  his  religion 
was  in  question  ?  Especially  when,  as  he  probably  thought, 
Jeremiah  had  guaranteed  his  own  personal  safety  and  comfort* 

»  Se«  Thomson,  "The  Land  and  the  Pook"  (1881)  p.  555 


IF  THOU   HADS7    KNOWN,  EVEN  THOU  ! 


m 


by  prophesying  ^a«  Zedekiah  might  ca'iily  infer  from  Jer.  xxxii.  5, 
xxxiv.  5)  that  after  a  short  stay  in  Babylon,  he  would  return  to 
"  die  in  peace  "  in  his  own  country.  With  kindly  earnestness 
Jeremiah  presses  the  king,  whose  weakness  he  pities,  to  listen 
to  his  advice,  but  in  vain.  Zedekiah  cannot  bear  the  thought 
of  being  ridiculed,  but  can  with  calmness  picture  Jerusalem  in 
flames  an  J  its  inhabitant  5  except  himself,  exposed  to  every 
outrage.  Let  him  be;  vengeance  is  on  its  way  ;  the  oracles 
concerning  him  will  be  fulfilled,  but  not  as  he  thinks.  Let  us 
keep  our  sympathy  for  worthier  objects.  Oh  for  a  solemn 
symphony  to  attune  the  mind  !  For  the  end  of  the  first  part  of 
Isniel's  tragedy  is  at  hand.  Thus  saith  the  Lord  Jehovah :  An 
evily  an  mly  {i.e,^  unique)  evil;  behold  it  cometh.  An  end  is 
come,  the  end  is  come,  it  mvakcth  against  thee  j  behold,  it  cometh 
(Ezek.  vii.  5,6).  Primitive  Israel  is  about  to  pass  through  its 
supreme  aphony,  (iood  may  come  out  of  this  g^eat  "  evil  "  ;  yet 
we  can  but  sympathize  with  those  up  n  whom  the  ploughshare 
of  captivity  made  such  "long  furrow^  "  (Psa.  cxxix.  3). 

The  siege  had  now  lasted  for  one  year,  five  months,  and 
twenty-seven  days.  It  was  early  in  July,'  586,  and  the  wheat 
harvest  ought  to  have  been  near.  Provisions  had  long  since 
begun  to  fail;  indeed,  but  for  this  we  might  never  have  heard  of 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem.  There  was  still  no  thought  of  sur- 
rendr-r.  Zedekiah  stayed  within  the  walls  from  pure  weakness 
of  mind  ;  the  "princes,"  because  they  would  sooner  starve  than 
see  their  proud  city  laid  low.  Some  homes  there  were  in  which 
(as  in  the  later  si«ge)  sights  of  horror  were  seen  (Lam.  ii.  20, 
iv,  10),  which  I  will  merely  hint  at  in  the  reticent  words  of 
Ugolino's  poet,  *^  Then  even  grief  by  hunger  was  outdone.""  The 
famished  warriors  could  no  longer  defend  the  one  weak  point 
in  their  fortifications.  With  a  wild  shout,  the  besiegers  poured 
in  through  a  breach  in  the  northern  wall.  It  was  night,  and 
under  cover  of  the  darkness  Zedekiah  and  his  little  army 
hurried  in  the  opposite  direction.  By  the  rocky  ravine  of  the 
Kedron  they  fled  as  far  as  the  "plains  of  Jericho"  ;  doubtless 
they  hoped  to  cross  the  Jordan,  and  elude  their  pursuers  in  the 

»  The  exact  day  is  chronicled  —  the  ninth  of  the  fourth  naonth.  Like 
the  other  "black  days"  of  this  period,  it  was  afterwards  observed  as  a  fast 
(Zech.  viii.  19). 

■  "  Poscia  pid  che'  1  dolor  poti  il  digiuno,"  Dante,  *'  Inf.'  xxxiii.  75, 
Above,  I  have  followed  Dean  Plumptre. 


m 


^%-  ^    r^\^ 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


V 


O 


% 


1.0 

1^12^    |2.5 

■19 

■^  Ui    12.2 

I.I 

IM, 

1.25 

|l.4    |||..6 

-^ 


^ 


y] 


7: 


&.. 


/A 


f 


7 


Photographic 

Sdences 

Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)872-4503 


<V 


Q 


•SJ 


\\ 


[V 


[1.^ 


o 


'^^ 
^•<(^^ 


6^ 


'<^ 


•% 


A^* 


Is 


<> 


6^ 


■:  ,  i 


176 


JEREMIAH. 


t 


mountains  of  Moab.  But  it  was  too  Tate  ;  the  Chald.ieans  were 
upon  them.  The  army  melted  away ;  the  king  was  captured, 
and  carried  to  the  headquarters  atRiblah  (see  p.  127),  where,  as 
a  punishment  for  his  perfidy  (Ezek.  xvii.  16),  his  eyes  were  put 
out,  his  sons  and  "all  the  nobles  of  Judah"'  havin?  been 
previously  executed  (Jer.  xxxix,  6, 7  ;  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  13).  Ruth- 
less Nebuchadrezzar  !  some  one  may  say.  But  it  was  the  just 
reward  of  Zedekiah's  perfidy  (Ezek.  xvii.  16),  according  to  the 
ideas  of  those  times;  Nebuchadrezzar  was  of  a  more  refined 
character  than  any  of  the  Assyrian  kings  (see  p.  146).  Jeremiah 
foresaw  this  gloomy  issue  of  the  building  extravagances  of 
Jehoiakim's  reign.  In  an  impassioned  address  to  the  nobles 
of  Jerusalem  (collectively  described  as  a  maiden  dwelling  in 
Lebanon,  because  of  their  houses  inlaid  with  cedar-wood)  he 
says, — 

0  inhabttress  of  Lebanon  that  makest  thy  nest  in  the  cedars y 
how  wilt  thou  groan'  when  pangs  come  upon  thee,  the  pain  as  oj 
a  woman  in  travail !  (Jer.  xxii.  23). 

A  month  of  passive  submission  to  the  outrages  of  the  soldiery 
followed.  The  officers  of  the  king  of  Babylon  had  posted  them- 
selves by  the  so-called  "  middle  gate,"  from  which  they  doubt- 
less commanded  both  parts  of  the  city,  the  upper  and  the  lower. 
Tl  e  names  of  the  two  chief  officers '  are  preserved  (Jer.  xxxix. 
13),  showing  that  the  narrative  (which,  of  course,  is  not  Jere- 
miah's work)  is  based  on  a  contemporary  record.  On  the 
seventh  day  of  the  fifth  month  came  the  chief  of  Nebuchadrez- 
zar's bodyguard,  Nebuzaradan  by  name/  and  burned  all  the 

*  More  complete  details  are  given  in  2  Kings  xxv.  18-31.  The  chief 
priest  and  the  second  priest  were  included. 

"  So  the  Septuagint,  which  is  followed  by  the  Peshitto  and  the  Vulgate. 
The  text-reading  gives,  according  to  the  Revised  Version,  "  How  greatly 
to  be  pitied  wilt  thou  be"  ;  this,  however,  is  improbable.  The  differenca 
ol  readings  is  slight. 

9  f  .  3  should  be  corrected  in  accordance  with  v.  13, — "  Nebushazban 
{Nahidezibanni)  the  chief  eunuch,  and  Nergalsharezer  (Nergaliarufur)  the 
chief  Magian."  "  Chief  Magian  "  is,  however,  an  uncertain  rendering 
of  "■  Rab-tnag"  "Mag"  is  probably  a  synonym  for  rub&t  Assyrian  for 
••prince."    Tiele,  "Bab. -ass.  Geschichte,"  p.  43a 

4  NabUziriddin  would  be  the  Babylonian  form  ;  his  office  may  be  more 
strictly  defined  as  that  of  "chief  of  the  executioners."  Dr.  Lansing's 
objection  (Expositor  Sept.  1888,  p.  324)  cannot  stand ;  Au.  (abiAAu  wm 
"  executioner." 


IF  THOU  HADST  KNOWN,  EVEN  THOU  1 


17? 


chief 


houses  of  the  city,  and  with  them  the  palace  and  the  house  of 
Jehovah.  The  sacred  vessels  still  remaining,  together  with  the 
two  splendid  pillars  (i  Kings  vii.  15-22),  were  carried  away. 
How  many  of  the  inhabitants  were  carried  away,  we  know  not ; 
Nebuchadrezzar's  library  is  likely  to  be  more  precise  on  this 
point  than  the  fragmentary  Jewish  narrative.  One  day  we  shall 
doubtless  have  it ;  till  then,  we  must  rest  content  with  a  few 
facts  and  possibilities. 

Certain  it  is  that  agriculture  was  not  entirely  interrupted  by 
the  calamities  of  the  state.  Besides  the  incidental  notice  in 
Jer.  xli.  8,  we  have  the  definite  and  trustworthy  statement  in 
Jer.  xxxix.  10  that  Nebuzaradan  left  of  the  people  the  mean  ones 
who  had  nothings  and  gave  them  vineyards  and  fields.  From 
Jer.  xliv.  2,  Ezek.  xxxvi.  4,  Isa.  li.  3,  &c.,  it  is  clear  that  the 
remaining  inhabitants  of  Judah  were  comparatively  few ;  this 
was  only  too  natural,  for  the  previous  calamities  had  reduced  the 
land  of  Israel  to  a  waste  condition,  as  Ezekiel  testifies  (Ezek. 
xxxiv.  23,  27).  But  it  would  be  hasty  to  infer  that  these  few 
were  entirely  composed  of  the  lowest  class.  Criticism  has  shown 
it  to  be  not  impossible  that  the  educated  class  was  to  some 
extent  represented  among  them.'  To  members  of  this  literary 
class  in  Judah  some  critics  have  ascribed  the  Book  of  Obadiah 
and  the  prophecy  which  now  forms  chaps,  xxiv.-xxvii.  of  Isaiah, 
also  the  Lamentations.  Yes ;  these  touching  elegies,  which  have 
so  long  been  ascribed  to  Jeremiah,  are  now  generally  denied  to 
him  on  grounds  which  no  archaeological  research  can  deprive  of 
their  force.  Poems  like  these  cannot,  it  is  urged,  have  been  pro- 
duced till  the  worst  misery  of  conquest  had  been  mitigated  by 
time.  The  technical  artificiality  of  their  form  proves  this.  In 
the  first  four  it  is  noteworthy  that  each  verse  begins  with  one  of 
the  Hebrew  letters,  according  to  the  alphabetical  order.  Even 
in  the  fifth,  in  which  this  strict  "  alphabetic "  structure  is  not 
found,  there  is  at  least  an  approximation  to  it ;  the  number  of 
verses  being  the  same  as  that  of  the  Hebrew  letters,  viz.,  twenty- 
two  (comp.  Psa.  xxxiii.,  xxxviii.,  ciii.).  To  assert,  with  Dean 
Plumptre,  that  the  born  poet  •*  accepts  the  discipline  of  a  self- 
iimposed  law  just  in  proportion  to  the  vehemence  of  his 
emotions,"  still  seems  to  me  incapable  of  proof  from  modem 
European  poetry,  and,  if  possible,  still  more  opposed  to  the 
acts  of  Hebrew  literature.  Some  of  the  examples  which  the 
■  See  Kuenen,  "  Religion  of  Israel,"  ii.  176. 


I!' 


178 


JEREMIAH. 


dean  adduces,  in  th^  introduction  to  Jeremiah  in  Bishop 
Ellicott's  series  of  commentaries,  "  are  merely  the  rhetorical 
exercises  of  poets  learning  their  craft  ;  others  merely  conces- 
sions to  the  taste  which  every  now  and  then  prevails  for  super- 
fine elaboration  in  every  branch  of  art ;  others  again  fand  these 
few  examples  are  alone  in  point),  the  attempts  of  the  artists  to 
help  Nature  to  recover  her  balance,  when  the  recovery  has 
already  begun,  and  emotion  has  already  lost  its  overpowering 
vehemence."  * 

Surely  we  ought  to  be  glad  and  not  sorry  at  this  result,  the 
critical  grounds  for  which  I  have  explained  in  detail  elsewhere. 
We  are  introduced  through  it  to  three  writers.  One  is  the 
author  of  Lam.  i.,  ii.,  iv. ;  a  second,  of  Lam.iii. ;  and  a  third,  of 
Lam.  V.  The  second,  who  is  acquainted  with  Job  as  well  as 
with  Jeremiah,  may  have  lived  either  in  Judah  or  in  Babylonia  ; 
the  first  and  third  are  most  naturally  regarded  as  resident  in 
Judah.  Jeremiah  was  apparently  the  favourite  book  of  all 
these  poets,  though  the  second  seems  also  to  have  been  well 
acquainted  with  Job  (written  most  probably  in  the  exile  period). 
If  therefore  a  title  had  to  be  given  by  way  of  defining  the 
authorship,  we  might  perhaps  style  the  entire  collection,  on 
the  analogy  of  portions  of  the  Psalter,  "The  Book  of  the 
Lamentations  of  the  Sons  of  Jeremiah."  * 

The  author  of  the  Septuagint  version  may  therefore  be 
excused  for  representing  the  Lamentations  to  have  been  indited 
by  Jeremiah,  seated  (like  another  Job)  on  the  dustheaps  of 
Jerusalem.  He  says  (and  this  notice  is  repeated  with  a  few 
additional  words  in  the  Vulgate),  "  And  it  came  to  pass,  after 
Israel  was  taken  captive  and  Jerusalem  made  desolate,  that 
Jeremias  sat  down  weeping,  and  lamented  with  this  lamenta- 
tion over  Jerusalem,  and  said."  Some  account  for  this  preface 
by  supposing  the  writer  to  have  followed  2  Chron.  xxxv.  25, 
which  states  (seep.  97)  that  Jeremiah  "lamented  for  Josiah," 
and  also  "all  the  singing  men  and  singing  women,"  and 
that  these  lamentations  are  written  down  in  a  collection  called 
qtndth  ("  elegies ").  If  this  view  were  correct,  the  Chronicler 
must  have  absurdly  interpreted  Lam.  iv.  20  of  Josiah.  It  is 
quite  enough,  however,  to  suppose  that  the  Septuagint  translator 
was  struck  by  the  aflinities  of  phraseology  between  Jeremiah 

■  *•  Lamentations  "  (in  "  Pulpit  Commentary  "),  Introduction,  p.  vii. 
•  Ibid.    Comp.  my  criL  note  on  Psa.  xxix.  i. 


r 


shop 
Irica] 
ices- 
Jiper- 
Ihese 
\s  to 

has 
bring 


i 


IP  THOU  HADST  KNOWN,  EVEN  THOU  ! 


179 


and  the  Lamentations,  and  also  found  a  certain  poetic  pro* 
priety  in  ascribing  the  authorship  of  the  latter  to  Jeremiah,  just 
as  some  Hellenistic  Jew  actually  assigns  Psa.  cxxxvii.  to  this 
prophet,*  because  of  the  words  "  sat  down  and  wept,"  although 
Jeremiah  never  saw  the  "  rivers  of  Babylon,"  at  any  rate  with 
his  outward  eyes.  More  elaborately  imaginative  than  the 
Septuagint  translator  of  Lamentations  were  the  traditionalists 
who  fixed  upon  a  cave  near  the  Damascus  Gate  for  the  abode 
of  the  weeping  prophet.  The  "  savage  wildness  "  of  the  spot 
*'  may  well  seem,"  as  George  Williams  thinks,  '•  to  have  caught 
the  gloomy  colour  of  the  desolate  heart  that  pours  forth  its 
plaintive  melody"*  in  the  Lamentations.  I  cannot  myself  see 
that  "savage  wildness"  of  which  the  learned  archaeologist 
speaks.  It  was  natural  for  a  Jew  to  seek  refuge  in  a  cave,  and 
Jeremiah  could  hardly  have  found  a  grander  or  a  more  convenient 
hermitage  than  the  cave  which  bears  his  name.  According  to 
Thomson,  it  extends  about  120  feet  under  the  cliff,  and  I  can 
well  believe  it.  In  fact,  but  for  the  much  more  extensive 
quarries  close  by,  it  would  be  reckoned  among  the  wonders  of 
Jerusalem.  A  vast  column  of  rock,  left  and  indeed  produced 
by  the  quarrymen,  supports  the  roof  and  adds  to  the  impressive- 
ness  of  the  place.  But  the  elliptically  shaped  cave  which  you 
see  first  is  not  the  whole  of  the  excavation.  To  the  left  of  the 
column  you  enter  a  second  cave,  not  so  large,  nor  so  light  and 
pleasant,  as  the  first,  and  forming  as  it  were  an  inner  chamber. 
Clearly  this  is  no  common  hermit's  cell,  but  worthy  of  the 
large-hearted  prophet,  to  whom  it  would  have  afforded  both 
space  and  quiet  for  his  poetic  toils.  Nor  is  it  incredible  that 
some  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  should  have  found  refuge 
both  here  and  in  the  larger  quarries.  Addressing  Moab,  Jere- 
miah says  (and  he  may  well  have  thought  of  his  own  advice 
when  the  '•  day  of  Jerusalem  "  came)— 

Oye  inhalants  of  Moab ^  leave  the  cities  and  dwell  in  the 
rock;  and  be  like  the  dove  that  maketh  her  nest  in  the  sides  oj 
thehoWs  mouth  (Jer.  xlviii.  28}. 

In  later  times  these  quarries  were  used,  like  the  catacombs,  for 
graves.  It  is  not  an  ignoble  fancy  that  Jeremiah  "  sat  down  and 
wept "  over  the  grave  of  his  youthful  hopes  in  this  grand  natural 
hermitage,  the  rock-doves  round  about  him  cooing  in  unison  with 

*  The  Septuagint  has  a  conflation  of  two  titles,  T^  ^avXi  'Itfitftiov. 

•  Supplement  to  vol.  L  of  "  The  Holy  City,"  p.  67. 


i8o 


JEREMIAH. 


::;U 


his  elegies.  Yes ;  it  is  not  an  ignoble  fancy,  and  even  Doan 
Stanley  sees  no  strong  objection  to  accepting  it.*  But  truth  must 
prevail  over  mere  imagination.  Jeremiah  could  not  have  stayed 
long  in  a  cave  in  the  **  day  of  Jerusalem."  We  mistake  the 
result  of  providential  training  when  we  suppose  that  he  all  at 
once  forgot  his  highest  intuitions,  and  his  far-seeing  religious 
patriotism.  His  words  are  not,  as  Stanley  thinks,  "preserved 
to  us  in  the  Book  of  the  Lamentations."  We  wrong  him  by 
too  exclusively  picturing  him  with  the  "  awestruck  figure  "  and 
*•  attitude  of  hopeless  sorrow "  attributed  to  him  by  Michel 
Angelo.  It  is  a  touching  idea  of  a  Jewish  Rabbi  (Eleazar)  that 
though  the  gates  of  prayer  are  closed,  the  gates  of  tears  are  not, 
but  though  suggested  by  the  Lamentations  (Lam.  iii.  8,  comp. 
Psa.  xxxix.  12),  it  does  not  express  the  mind  of  Jeremiah. 
This  spiritual  hero  is  not  rightly  styled  the  weeping  prophet. 
There  was  a  time,  no  doubt,  when  he  really  was  that  which 
poor  Matthew  Arnold  so  much  disliked ;  it  was  when  his 
intuition  was  clear  enough  to  show  him  the  swiftly  approaching 
judgment,  but  not  the  buds  of  peace  and  holiness  blossoming 
on  the  fields  of  ruin.  Jeremiah's  anguish  in  his  helpless 
wisdom,  when  he  alone — a  grander  Demosthenes — saw  how  the 
judgment  could  be  stayed,  and  no  one  would  give  heed  to  him, 
when  he  wished  that  "  his  head  were  waters  and  his  eyes  a 
fountain  of  tears,  that  he  might  weep  day  and  night  for  the 
slain  of  the  daughter  of  his  people  "  (Jer.  ix.  i),  is  indeed  a 
subject  worthy  of  a  painter's  hand,  but  is  there  not  a  still  nobler 
theme — the  same  once  sad  man  taking  up  his  cross  and  bearing 
it  aloft,  strengthened  (like  his  great  antitype)  by  "  the  joy  that 
was  set  before  him  "  (Heb.  xii.  2)  ? 

Of  this  I  shall  be  called  to  speak  in  the  next  chapter. 
Meantime  let  me  not  withhold  the  truest  and  most  admiring 
sympathy  from  those  "sons  of  Jeremiah,"  who  followed  the 
prophet  in  his  weakness  rather  than  in  his  strength,  but  who  so 
sweetly  struck  the  keynote  of  captive  Israel's  mourning."    Is 

«  "Sermons  on  Special  Occasions,"  p.  311.  Comp.  p.  317,  "  We  are  with 
Jeremiah  on  the  rocky  mount,  weeping  over  Jerusalem."  Truly  we  could 
hardly  imagine  that  even  a  weeping  prophet  always  remained  in  his  cave- 
dwelling. 

*  These  elegies  were  the  forerunners  of  a  large  body  of  synagogue  poetry. 
The  most  famous  of  the  later  qtnoth  is  that  of  Yehuda  Halevi  (twelfth 
century  a.d.).  known  even  to  general  readers  by  Heine's  poem  m  the 
HomanMero. 


tl 
u 

SI 

e 

F 
I 

1 


! 


IF  THOU  HADST  KNOWN,  EVEN  THOU  I 


i8i 


iDoaa 
[must 
tayed 
the 
■all  at 


I 


there  another  such  book  in  the  whole  world — such  an  "  almost 
unalloyed  expression  of  unrestrained  anguish,  and  utter,  incon- 
solable desolation"  ?  Well  did  Stanley  draw  out  the  permanent 
elements  of  human  interest  which  it  contains,  and  find  a  pathetic 
present-day  illustration  of  them  in  the  Siege  of  Paris,  1870-71. 
But  there  is  that  in  the  circumstances  of  the  original  writers  to 
which,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  there  can  be  no  complete 
parallel.  The  tragedy  of  Israel  is  greater  than  that  of  any  other 
people  :  Behold  and  set  cf  there  be  any  sorrow  like  unto  mj 
wrrow  (Lain.  i.  13). 


CHAPTER   VI. 


A  PASTOR'S  STRANGE  FAREWELL. 


Im 


Gedaliah  becomes  viceroy— The  prophet  stays  with  him  at  Mizpali— 
Ishmael's  outrages — Flight  from  Mizpah --Migration  into  Egypt— 
The  heathen  festival — The  stormv  colloquy. 

"  But  have  you  not  been  somewhat  too  hasty  in  rejecting  the 
help  of  tradition  ?  Have  you  not  expressly  accepted  the  help 
of  imaginative  conjecture  in  filling  up  the  scanty  notices  of 
contemporary  records  (see  p.  13)?  Why  should  you  refuse 
the  co-operation  of  those  early  traditionalists,  who  were  them- 
selves so  imaginative?"  So  some  one  may  ask,  dismissing 
with  a  wave  of  the  hand  the  reasons  which  I  have  offered,  and 
pointing  triumphantly  to  the  four  verses  which  follow  the 
account  of  Nebuzaradan's  displantation  of  the  "  remnant  of  the 
people "  (Jer.  xxxix.  11-14).  In  this  paragraph  we  are  in  fact 
told  that  Nebuchadrezzar  gave  special  injunctions  to  his  high 
officer  to  "set  his  eyes  on  Jeremiah,  and  do  him  no  harm," 
in  consequence  of  which  the  prophet  was  brought  from  the 
**  court  of  the  guard  "  into  **  the  house "  {t.g.,  perhaps  the 
royal  palace),  and  given  perfect  liberty  of  movement.  Is  it 
likely  that  Jeremiah  would  feel  happy  in  the  home  of  fallen 
greatness  ?  Why  may  we  not  suppose  that,  while  the  captives 
were  awaiting  the  order  to  remove,  Jeremiah  "sat  down  and 
wept "  in  the  dim  seclusion  of  the  cave, 

"  Still  round  and  round  that  strange  old  alphabet 
Weaving  his  long  funereal  chant  of  woe?" 

(Alexander,  "  The  Waters  of  Babylon.") 


r> 


A  PASTOR'S  STRANGE  FAREWELL. 


183 


1  am  afraid  that  this  imaginative  inference  from  those  four 
verses  will  not  hold,  for  we  have  an  express  statement  in  Jer. 
xl.  which  militates  altogether  against  it.  There  we  are  told  that 
the  prophet  was  taken  with  the  other  captives,  bound  with 
chains,  to  Ramah,  where  he  was  set  at  liberty  by  Nebuzaradan.' 
This  is  much  more  likely  than  that  Jeremiah  received  any 
special  attention  in  the  turmoil  of  the  capture,  and  most  of  all 
improbable  is  it  that  Nebuchadrezzar  himself  had  anything 
to  do  with  his  liberation.  Let  us  then  accept  the  historical 
picture  suggested  by  Jer.  xl.  Jeremiah,  who  doubtless  passed 
at  first  for  one  of  the  dependents  of  the  palace,  went  with 
Ebedmdech  and  the  rest  to  Ramah."  That  conspicuous  hill- 
town,  fivi  miles  north  of  Jerusalem,  now  became  the  meeting- 
place  of  bands  of  exiles  from  all  quarters.  It  was  there  that 
Jeremiah,  in  the  greatest  of  his  prophetic  visions,  had  seemed 
to  hear  "  ancient  Rachel "  (as  Dante  calls  her)  weeping  for  her 
captive  children  (Jer.  xxxi.  15),  and  there  that,  in  sober,  waking 
reality,  he  now  saw  and  heard  the  bitter  grief  of  the  last  repre- 
sentatives of  the  true  people  of  Israel.  It  is  in  a  dreary, 
lonesome  country— only  interesting  to  us  from  its  historical 
associations,  and  surely  the  saddest  of  these  is  that  connected 
with  the  starting  of  the  Jewish  exiles  for  Babylonia.  Not  far 
off,  to  the  south-west,  was  a  still  more  strikingly  situated 
hill-town  called  Mizpah,^  where  in  the  period  of  the  Judges 
popular  assemblies  had  been  held  (Judg.  xx.  i  ;  i  Sam.  x.  17). 
This  place  had  been  selected  for  the  residence  of  the  newly 
appointed  governor  of  "  the  cities  of  Judah,"  himself  a  Jew, 
and  bound  by  family  ties  to  Jeremiah— Gedaliah,  the  son  of 
Ahikam  (comp.  Jer.  xxvi.  24).  It  now  became  the  duty  of 
Nebuzaradan  to  consider  the  special  circumstances  of  any 
particular  captive,  and  Gedaliah  appears  to  have  called  his 

*  It  will  be  noticed  that  two  remarkable  expressions  in  Jer.  xxxix.  11-14, 
"set  eyes  upon"  and  "dwell  among  the  people,"  occur  also  in  Jer.  xl. 
Probably  therefore  the  shorter  account  in  Jer.  xxxix.  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  a  distinct  tradition. 

*  Ramah  (now  the  village  er-Ram)  was  on  the  frontier  of  the  two  king- 
doms (see  I  Kings  xv.  17,  22).    Hence  the  reference  in  Jeremiah's  vision. 

9  I  do  not  see  how  the  well-known  Mizpah  of  Benjamin  can  be  identified 
with  Nob  (so  Conder).  Neby  Samwil,  where  traces  of  an  ancient  town 
are  still  found,  answers  all  requirements  (see  Robinson,  "Biblical  Re- 
seaiches,"  ii.  144).  It  has  a  grand  view,  "the  most  comprehensive  in 
•outhem  Palestine,"  thus  justifying  its  nam*. 


I 


184 


JEREMIAH. 


attention  to  Jeremiah.  There  was  much  in  the  character  and 
previous  history  of  the  prophet  to  command  even  a  Babylonian's 
respect.  We  know  how  susceptible  of  reverence  for  all  that 
was  good  and  spiritually  noble  Nebuchadrezzar  was,  and  we 
cannot  doubt  that  Nebuzaradan  acted  in  the  spirit  of  his 
master  when  he  gave  Jeremiah  the  choice  of  either  going  to 
Babylon  with  the  exiles,  or  dwelling  with  the  Jews  who  remained 
under  the  native  governor.  In  an  impassioned  section  of  his 
prophecy  (Jer.  xv.  10-21)  Jeremiah  (as  some  think)  reveals  the 
state  of  mind  in  which  his  difficult  decision  was  made.  "  He 
tells  his  friends  that  the  resolution  to  go  to  Gedaliah  costs  him 
a  severe  struggle.  He  longs  for  rest,  and  in  Babylon  he  would 
have  more  chance  of  a  quiet  life  than  among  the  turbulent 
Jews  at  home.  But  he  has  looked  up  to  God  for  guidance, 
and,  however  painful  to  the  flesh,  God's  will  must  be  obeyed. 
He  gives  us  the  substance  of  the  revelation  which  he  received. 
The  Divine  counsellor  points  out  to  him  that  He  has  already 
interposed  in  the  most  striking  manner  for  Jeremiah,  and 
declares  that  if  he  will  devote  himself  to  the  Jews  under 
Gedaliah,  a  new  and  fruitful  field  will  be  open  to  him,  in 
which,  moreover,  by  Divine  appointment,  no  harm  can  happen 
to  him."  '  Yes;  in  these  trying  circumstances  Jeremiah  may  have 
wavered  for  a  moment,  and  longed  that  "  this  cup  might  pass 
from  him."  How  much  he  had  suffered  from  the  intense  strain 
of  the  last  few  years  !  Would  it  be  wrong  to  live  in  compara- 
tive ease  in  Babylonia,  varying  the  elegies  of  the  mourner  with 
the  bright  visions  of  the  heaven-taught  prophet  ?  No  ;  it 
would  not  be  wrong  in  another  ;  but  it  would  be  inconsistent 
with  his  unselfish  character.  There  was  Ezekiel  for  the  exiles  ; 
the  poverty-stricken  remnant  at  home '  could  not  dispense  with 
Jeremiah.  So  he  bade  farewell  to  the  captives,  and  went  to 
Mizpah.     It  is  a  noble  example,  and  those  who  can  follow  it 

*  "Jeremiah  "  (in  "  Pulpit  Commentary  ")  i.  373.  In  this  view  I  follow 
Gratz.  It  is  no  doubt  only  a  conjecture,  but  it  enables  us  to  realize  the 
words  of  the  prophet  more  vividly.  There  are  some  great  difficulties  in  the 
te;:t,  and  apparently  one  interpolation,  verses  13,  14  being  probably  an 
incorrect  copy  of  xvii.  3,  4. 

•  I  see  no  reason  to  suppose  with  M.  Clermont-Ganneau  that  the 
"  remnant  of  Judah  "  consisted  flierely  of  "  serfs  of  the  Israelitish  aris- 
tocracy, themselves  not  of  pure  Israelitish  blood  "  (see  his  lecture,  trans- 
lated in  •*  Palestine  Fund  Statement,"  1875,  p.  ao6).  Observe  that 
princwsej  of  the  blood  royal  were  among  those  who  were  left  behind. 


ii;!i 


A  pastor's  stramoe  farewell. 


18$ 


may  miss  much  that  is  pleasant  in  life,  but  show  that  they  have 
the  true  prophet's  spirit. 

It  was  a  bold  experiment  which  was  about  to  be  tried,  and 
Nebuchadrezzar  deserves  credit  for  the  kindness  which  prompted 
it.  The  newly  organized  subject  people  might  perhaps  be 
less  fickle  than  the  primitive  Israel  now  numbered  with  the 
dead,  but  there  was  certainly  a  risk  of  disappointment.  There 
was  also  not  a  little  danger  from  the  small  neighbouring 
peoples,  which  had  looked  with  malicious  pleasure  on  the 
calamity  of  Judah,  and  hoped  to  increase  their  territory  at 
its  expense  (see  Lam.  iv.  22,  Ezek.  xxv.,  xxxv.,  Obad.  10-16). 
The  governor,  however,  had  been  carefully  selected  ;  his  views 
(see  Jer.  xl.  9)  were  precisely  those  which  Jeremiah  had  so 
long  vainly  inculcated  in  Jerusalem.  General  confidence  ap- 
pears to  have  been  reposed  in  his  upright  character,  and 
crowds  of  Jewish  fugitives  resorted  to  him  from  their  tempo- 
rary hiding-places  in  foreign  lands.  Even  the  leaders  of  the 
Jewish  guerilla  bands  condescended  at  his  entreaty  to  engage 
in  husbandry.  Nature  did  her  best  to  efface  the  sad  marks  of 
invasion  ;  we  are  told  that  the  husbandmen  (most  of  them  now 
for  the  first  time  proprietors,  Jer.  xxxix.  10)  "  gathered  wine  and 
summer  fruits  very  much"  (Jer.  xl.  12).  No  doubt  they  took 
this  for  a  favourable  omen,  and  ventured  to  hope  that  He,  who 
had  not  forgotten  His  covenant  with  the  land,  would  yet  call  to 
remembrance  His  covenant  with  His  people  (Hos.  ii.  21-23). 
Our  prophet  would  be  the  last  to  blame  them ;  but  he  would 
warn  them  not  to  forfeit  these  blessings  by  disobedience  to  the 
authority  which  had  Jehovah's  sanction.  A  certain  chastened 
happiness  must  have  been  Jeremiah's  at  this  time ;  he  had  the 
governor  on  his  side,  and  the  other  prophets  (who  found  no 
more  vision  from  Jehovah^  Lam.  ii.  9),  had  left  the  field  free 
to  their  "  despised  and  rejected  "  colleague.  For  about  four 
years  *  all  went  smoothly ;  but  in  the  fifth,  grave  events  took 
place.     It  was  now  Tisri,  the  month  of  the  Feast  of  Booths — 

<  Comparing  Jer.  xli.  z  with  a  Kings  xxv.  8,  we  might  infer  that  only 
two  months  elapsed  between  Nebuzaradan's  arrival  at  Jerusalem  and  the 
massacre  at  Mizpah.  This  is  in  itself  improbable  ;  besides,  in  lii.  32  a 
third  deportation  of  Jews  is  mentioned,  which  certainly  stands  in  some 
connexion  with  the  murder  af  Gedaliah  and  the  Chaldieans.  Such  an  open 
insult  to  Babylon  would  surely  not  wait  nearly  five  years  for  a  severe  punish- 
ment. It  is  only  fair  to  mention  that  Jer.  xli.  i  does  net  laention  tht  y«M 
in  which  the  events  to  be  described  took  place. 


I 


186 


JEREMIAH. 


i    '[ 


the  annual  thanksgiving  for  the  crops.  Ishmael,  a  prince  of  the  in- 
jured royal  house,  had  determined  to  spoil  this  year's  celebration 
for  all  peaceable  Jews.  He  obtained  the  support  of  Israel's 
bitter  foe,  Baalis,  the  Ammonite  king,  and  began  to  seek  an 
opportunity  of  wreaking  his  vengeance  on  the  Babylonian 
viceroy.  One  of  the  old  guerilla-leaders — Johanan  by  name — 
heard  of  it,  and  gave  notice  to  the  governor  ;  but  he  in  the 
simplicity  of  his  heart  refused  to  credit  such  baseness.  The 
warning  was  repeated, — IVhy  should  he  slay  thee,  that  all  the 
Jews  which  are  gathered  unto  thee  should  be  scattered,  and  all 
the  remnant  should  perish  f  (Jer.  xl.  15)— but  in  vain.  Gedaliah 
refused  to  give  leave  for  Ishmael  to  be  slain  ;  "  thou  speakest 
falsely^  he  said,  "  of  Ishmael." 

And  now  we  hear  no  more  of  the  Ammonites  ;  the  story  of 
accumulated  murders  which  follows  has  for  its  central  figure 
the  inhuman  Ishmael.  With  ten  companions  he  reaches  the 
hill-town  where  Gedaliah  resides,  and  is  entertained  by  the 
governor  at  a  meal.  Generous,  simple-minded  Gedaliah  1  how 
could  he  dream  that  even  the  law  of  hospitality  was  no  longer 
sacred  to  his  guest,  and  that  he  who  had,  from  the  purest 
patriotism,  accepted  the  unenviable  position  of  head  of  a 
ruined  house  (Isa.  iii.  6),  would  be  called  to  account  for  mis- 
fortunes which  none  more  than  he  deplored  ?  Then  arose 
Ishmaelf  and  the  ten  men  that  were  with  him^  and  smote 
Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikam  the  son  of  Shaphan  with  the 
swordy  and  slew  him  whom  the  king  of  Babylon  had  made 
governor  over  the  land  (Jer.  xli.  2).  Too  significant  words  ! 
Gedaliah,  the  innocent  Gedaliah,  suffered  the  vengeance  in- 
tended  for  Nebuchadrezzar,  and  with  him  all  the  trained 
wamors  who  were  about  him,  including,  we  are  expressly 
told,  "the  Chaldeans  who  were  present  there.**  Whether  the 
interests  of  Judah  were  promoted  or  not  by  these  murders,  was 
not  a  question  which  occurred  to  Ishmael.  Perhaps  he  would 
have  been  content  himself  with  the  position  of  a  chieftain  of  a 
small  Israelitish  tribe  under  the  suzerainty  of  the  Ammonites. 
As  yet,  however,  his  predominant  feeling  was  that  of  rage  at 
any  Israelite  who  recognized  "  the  logic  of  facts,"  and  submitted 
to  the  Babylonians.  The  second  day  after  the  murder,  "  while 
DO  one  knew  it "  (had  Ishmael,  then,  closed  the  gates  of  the 
town  ?},  there  came  eighty  men  from  Shechem,  Shiloh  (or 
perhaps  rather  Shalem  or    Salem'),   and  Samaria— places 

*  Soe  p.  Z16,  note  1. 


A  PASTOR'S  STRANGE  FAREWELL. 


187 


the  in* 
^ration 

srael's 
kek  an 
[Ionian 
lame — 
[in  the 
The 
xll  the 
xrtdall 
Maliah 
Weakest 


was 


which,  probably  through  Josiah's  exenions,  still  maintained 
their  religious  interest  in  Jerusalem,  on  their  way  to  the  site 
of  the  destroyed  temple.  They  had  all  the  outward  signs  of 
mourning ;  it  was  no  joyous  festivity  which  they  thought  to 
celebrate ;  but,  so  far  as  they  could,  they  wished  to  observe 
the  accustomed  .forms  by  bringing  oblations  {ininkhiXh)  to 
Jehovah.  Truly  a  noteworthy  phenomenon  !  How  great  is 
the  power  of  sacred  spots,  even  apart  from  the  buildings 
essential,  as  one  might  think,  to  religious  observances !  The 
temple  has  been  burned,  but  the  temple-precincts  are  not  less 
sacred  to  there  faithful  worshippers.  And  now  that  the  sad 
procession  has  almost  reached  Mizpah,  they  can  clearly  see 
these  precincts,  and  weep  anew.'  Perhaps  it  was  evening  ;  at 
any  rate,  one  more  halt  would  be  necessary.  Hence  the  men 
were  not  surprised  at  the  seemingly  hospitable  invitation, 
"  Come  to  Gedaliah  the  son  of  Ahikam."  But  the  speaker 
was  the  ruthless  Ishmael ;  of  those  eighty  men  only  ten  re- 
turned home.  Unchanging  East !  still  dost  thou  nourish  the 
same  hot,  revengeful  natures  as  of  yore  ;  still  does  thy  revenge 
accept  the  help  of  treachery  in  the  execution  of  its  fell  designs. 
Cawnpore  and  Mizpah  stand  together  in  the  annals  of  Oriental 
passion. 

There  was  a  "  great  cistern  "  in  the  middle  of  the  town  which 
king  Asa  had  constructed  during  his  war  with  Baasha  king  of 
Israel  (comp.  i  Kings  xv.  22) ;  into  this  Ishmael  threw  the 
dead  bodies  of  the  murdered  seventy.  And  what  of  the  ten  ? 
Was  it  pity  which  saved  them  ?  No  ;  it  was  greed.  Then,  as 
now,  husbandmen  who  feared  robbers  stored  the  rich  products 
of  the  soil  where  no  one  would  suspect  them— in  carefully  con- 
cealed openings  in  the  rocky  hill-side.  These  ten  men  were 
more  prosperous  than  the  rest,  and  ransomed  their  lives  by 
their  wealth."  Ishmael  was  doubtless  'a  poor  adventurer,  and 
material  means  were  wanting  to  carry  out  his  plans.  The 
greatest  difficulty,  however,  still  remains  to  be  explained. 
How  could  Ishmael  venture  to  touch  the  sacred  persons  of 
pilgrims  ?    I  suppose  that  he  was  one  of  those  whom  Jeremiah 

«  Following  the  Septuagint  (see  "  Var'.orura  Bible"). 

•  There  is  a  Zulu  formula  for  deprecatiiij:  death  on  the  ground  of  some 
important  work  which  cannot  be  done  without  the  person  whose  life  is  in 
danger.  Bishop  Callaway  compares  this  with  the  story  before  us  ("  Zulu 
Nursery  Tales,"  i  242) ;  but  it  is  not  a  very  close  parallel 


i88 


JIREMIAH. 


i 

i 

) 

i 

'i 

■  i 

^ii 


Kr^:*  ■    .',11 


addresses  in  that  indignant  strain,  Whatf  steals  murder y  and 
commit  adultery t  and  swear  falsely,  and  burn  incense  unto 
Baalf  (Jer.  vii.  9).  Possibly  too  he  thought  that  Jehovah 
had  deserted  his  land,  and  that  now  less  than  ever  were  those 
moral  laws,  of  which  Jeremiah  was  the  exponent,  binding  upon 
an  Isr::elite.  These  eighty  men  were  carrying  oblations  to 
Jehovah  ;  he,  for  his  part,  was  satisfied  with  the  less  exacting 
religion  of  Baal.  But  why  were  the  people  of  Mizpah  spared  ? 
Did  he  think  that  those  poor  northern  people  could  be  better 
dispensed  with  than  the  inhabitants  of  his  own  native  Judah  ? 
Or  that  seventy  was  about  the  number  of  those  Jewish  nobles 
whom  Nebuchadrezzar  had  slain  in  Riblah  (Jer.  xxxix.  6),  so 
that  the  avenger  of  blood  cculd  now  afford  to  be  merciful  ?  At 
any  rate,  the  people  of  Mizpah,  including,  besides  Jeremiah, 
kinswomen  of  Ishmael  belonging  to  the  royal  house,  were  being 
carried  off  by  these  few  bold  ad"enturers  in  the  direction  of  the 
land  of  Ammon. 

The  route  which  they  adopted  led  them  at  first  northwards. 
Before  they  had  got  far,  they  paused  to  drink  by  "  the  great  waters 
that  are  in  Gibeon."  *  How  natural  1  Remember  that  they  had 
started  in  haste.  One  can  still  observe  an  ancient  broken 
reservoir  on  the  west  side  of  the  hill  of  Gibeon  {el-Jib)  ;  and  in 
the  wet  season,  says  Thomson,  there  is  a  considerable  pond  in 
the  plain  below  the  modern  village.  While  the  caravan  halted 
Johanan  and  his  fellow-captains  came  up  with  them.  What  could 
Ishmael  and  his  ten  warriors'  do  against  this  superior  force  ? 
Blows  were  exchanged,  and  Ishmael  lost  two  of  his  men,  and 
made  off  with  the  rest  to  the  Ammonites.  What  was  Johanan 
to  do  now  ?  Had  he  been  able  to  deliver  up  the  arch-conspirator 
to  the  Chaldaeans,  he  might  perhaps  have  hoped  for  a  con- 
tinuance of  Nebuchadrezzar's  favours.  But  appearances  were 
against  him.  He  had  (so  it  would  be  said  at  the  court)  allowed 
a  few  bold  men  tu  subvert  the  existing  organization,  to  kill 
the  representatives  of  Babylon,  and  to  escape  unpunished. 


*  In  a  Sam.  ii.  13  these  "waters"  are  called  "  the  pool  of  Gibeon." 

*  In  Jer.  xli.  16  "men  of  war"  must  surely  be  an  interpolated  gloss. 
According  to  v.  3  the  warriors  had  all  been  slain  by  Ishmael.  The  Hebrew 
^barim  (represented  in  A.V.  by  "mighty")  simply  means  "men"  as 
opposed  to  "  women."  In  Jer.  xliii.  6,  where  the  sexes  and  classes  of  tht 
people  of  Mizpah  are  again  catalogued,  we  have  simply  g'bdrim  (comp 
xliv.  ao). 


A  PASTOR'S  STRANGE  FAREWELU 


189 


ir,  and 

unto 
Jhovah 
those 
upon 
)ns  to 
Jacting 
ared  ? 
better 
ludah  ? 
nobles 
6),  so 
?    At 
emiah, 
being 
of  the 


and 


Vengeance  would  assuredly  be  taken  for  this,  and  among  the 
leading  sufferers  would  be  Johanan  and  his  fellows.  So  they 
thought  it  most  prudent  to  make  for  the  Egyptian  frontier,,  and 
without  stopping  at  Mizpah,  pressed  on  to  the  hospice  or  khan 
of  Chimham  (if  the  reading  is  correct »),  close  to  Bethlehem. 
Here  they  halted  to  hold  a  fresh  council  of  war,  and  more 
especially  to  obtain  supernatural  light  from  the  prophet  of 
Jehovah.  It  was  indeed  no  slight  matter  for  the  choicest  part 
of  the  remnant  of  Israel  to  return  to  the  very  land  out  of  which 
their  fathers  had  been  divinely  guided.  So  they  {i.e.,  the  whole 
community)  approached  Jeremiah  in  suppliant  guise,  as  one 
who,  like  Moses  and  like  Samuel,  had  power  with  God  to  turn 
the  destinies  of  his  people.  Jeremiah  agreed  to  this  request, 
and  Johanan  promised  in  return  that,  whatever  the  oracle 
should  bC;  ♦hey  would  cheerfully  obey  the  commardment  of 
Jehovah.  "  Methinks  he  doth  protest  too  much,"  was  perhaps 
the  unspoken  thought  of  Jeremiah. 

Nine  days  the  prophet  passed  in  meditation  and  prayer. 
Knowing  him  as  we  do,  we  cannot  doubt  that  he  sustained  a 
severe  mental  conflict.  Kis  dear  friend  and  patron,  who 
seemed  to  have  been  raised  up  "  for  such  a  time  as  this," 
had  been  brutally  murdered,  and  Jehovah  had  not  warned 
him  of  it.  Common  sense  seemed  to  bid  acquiescence  i  ■>  the 
policy  provisionally  adopted  by  Johanan.  Jeremiah  knew  as 
well  as  any  one  what  Babylonian  vengeance  meant ;  could  he 
imperil  the  lives  of  so  many  of  his  countrymen  by  advising 
them  to  remain  ?  It  was  hard  no  doubt  to  condemn  them- 
selves to  exile ;  but  in  all  material  respects  might  they  not  hope 
to  be  the  gainers,  and  if  Isa.  xix.  18-25  was  really  written  by 
Isaiah,  did  it  not  indicate  that,  even  religiously,  Israelites  might 
have  all  their  cravings  satisfied  in  Egypt  ?  And  yet  the  pro- 
phetic spirit  had  distinctly  assured  him  that  in  Babylon  alone 
could  the  regeneration  of  Israel  be  effected.  Had  not  the 
silence  of  Jehovah  in  the  recent  crisis  proved  that  the  delight- 


•  Chimham  (rather,  Kimham)  is  most  probably  a  personal  name.  To 
found  a  kh&n  for  the  accommodation  of  travellers  was  a  most  natural  ex< 
pression  of  public-spirited  liberality.  Possibly  it  is  the  son  of  the  rich 
Gileadite  Barzillai  (2  Sam.  xix.  37-40)  who  is  meant.  But  Josephus  and 
Aquila  appear  to  have  read  "by  the  hurdles  of  Chimham,"  which  is  almost 
more  probable.  Gederah,  Gederotnaim,  and  Gederoth,  are  the  names  of 
three  places  belonging  to  Judah  in  Josh.  zv. 


190 


JEREMIAH. 


ful  project  of  a  small  home-community  was  not  from  Him?* 
And  was  He  not  the  God  of  the  innocent,  and  the  helper  of  the 
friendless  ?  So  faith  spoke  louder  than  policy,  and  on  the 
tenth  day  the  prophet  had  a  clear  intuition  of  the  Divine  will, 
or,  in  the  consecrated  phrase,  ^he  word  of  Jehovah  came  unio 
Jeremiah.  He  sent  word  to  Johanan,  and  the  whole  com- 
munity again  met  before  the  great  prophet.  No  longer,  how- 
ever, in  the  same  submissive  spirit.  Tiiese  ten  days  had  not 
been  spent  idly  by  the  captains  and  their  companions.  The 
more  they  considered  the  question,  the  less  they  could  regard  it 
as  an  open  one.  Jeremiah  was  in  a  difficult  position.  Never 
was  the  need  more  obvious  of  a  class  of  teachers  distinct  from 
the  prophets,  who  could  inculcate  prophetic  ideas  in  a  more 
conciliatory  style.  Such  a  class  had  never  existed  at  Jerusalem, 
though  some  of  the  "  wise  men  "  had  down  to  the  time  of  the 
death  of  Josiah  helped  to  predispose  suitable  individuals  in 
favour  of  the  prophetic  point  of  view."  There  was  certainly  no 
one  to  stand  by  Jeremiah  now — no  one  to  go  in  and  out  of  the 
tents,  preparing  the  people  to  receive  his  address,  and  explain- 
ing it  kindly  and  wisely  after  it  had  been  spoken.  So  the 
words  of  the  "allocution"  fell  upon  unfriendly  ears,  and  the 
increasing  sternness  of  its  tone  suggests  that  clouds  of  wrath 
were  visibly  gathering  on  the  brows  of  the  excitable  audience. 
This  is  what  Jeremiah  in  effect  said :  "  I  know  that  ye  are  sick 
pf  the  trumpet's  blare,  and  of  the  never  long  absent  fear  of 
famine.  I  know  that  ye  long  to  live  together  under  a  mild 
sovereign.  All  these  things  that  ye  desire  shall  ye  have,  if  ye 
will  only  dwell  in  this  land.  Jehovah  is  satisfied  with  the 
chastening  which  Israel  has  received,  nor  does  He  wish  to 
root  up  His  people  altogether.  Be  not  afraid  of  Nebuchad- 
rezzar ;  he  is  the  instrument  of  God's  purposes,  and  God  will 
turn  his  heart  like  the  water-courses.  But  if  ye  obstinately 
disobey,  I  warn  you  that  the  evils  which  ye  dread  shall  over- 
take you  there  ;  ye  shall  see  this  land  no  more.  Do  ye 
scowl  at  me  ?  Infatuated  men  I  Ye  deluded  yourselves  ^  when 
ye  protested  such  willingness  to  obey  God's  word.    Ye  have 

*  In  imagining  such  a  thought  to  have  passed  through  Jeremiah's  mind, 
I  assume  that  Jer.  xlii.  lo  does  oot  accurately  represent  the  point  of  view  of 
Jeremiah.    See  below. 

■  See  p.  90. 

s  In  Jer.  xlii.  ao,  we  should  render,  "  Yea,  ye  misled  your  own  selves,"  &c. 


A  PASTOR'S  STRANGE  FAREWELL 


191 


made  your  choice ;  know,  then,  that  sword,  famine,  and  pesti* 
lence  await  you  in  Egypt." 

It  is  a  striking  narrative.  The  writer  does  not  conceal  from 
us  that  he  has  taken  his  side.  Azariah '  (who  seems  now  to 
have  pushed  himself  to  the  front)  and  Johanan  are  the  leaders 
of  a  band  of  disobedient  apostates.'  Their  reply  to  Jeremiah  is 
preserved  ;  it  places  us  in  the  very  midst  of  the  religious  party- 
struggles  of  the  day.  Thou  speakest  falsely ^  they  say  ;  Jehovah 
our  God  hath  not  sent  thee,  saying,  Go  not  into  Egypt  to  sojourn 
there.  Their  point  of  view  is  precisely  that  of  the  priests  and 
prophets  on  an  earlier  occasion.  When  Jeremiah  prophesied, 
"This  house  shall  be  like  Shiloh,"  they  arrested  and  con- 
demned  him  to  death,  not  on  the  ground  that  he  was  a  false 
claimant  of  the  prophetic  gift,  but  that  he  had  mistaken  his 
private  opinion  for  the  "  word  "  of  Jehovah.  So  his  opponents 
argued  now,  though  they  cast  a  part  of  the  blame  on  one  of 
whom  we  should  never  have  thought — the  prophet's  faithful 
scribe  :  Baruch  the  son  of  Neriah  setteth  thee  on  against  us,  to 
deliver  us  into  the  hand  of  the  Chaldaans  (Jer.  xliii.  3).  Was 
there  any  foundation  for  this  story  ?  It  is  possible.  From  the 
special  oracle  to  Baruch,  spoken  in  the  fatal  fourth  year  of 
Jehoiakim,  we  may  gather  that  Baruch  was  inclined  by  nature 
to  paint  things  in  rose-colour.  And  seekesi  thou  great  things 
for  thyself  t  seek  them  not?  Behold,  that  which  I  have  built 
will  1  break  down,  and  that  which  I  have  planted  will  I  pluck 
up,  even  this  whole  land  (Jer.  xlv.  5,  4).  Taking  this  passage 
in  connexion  with  Jer.  xlii.  10, 1  infer  that  Baruch,  though  his 
moral  standard  was  as  high  as  Jeremiah's,  believed  that,  even 
after  its  heavy  losses,  Israel  as  a  nation  could  yet  be  "  built  up" 
in  its  own  land.  No  doubt  th^  oracle  in  Jer.  xlv.  weakened  his 
illusion  for  the  time  ;  indeed,  the  logic  of  facts  had  already 
added  sorrow  to  his  grief .  But,  as  is  the  wont  of  human  nature, 
his  personal  bent  reasserted  itself,  and  the  establishment  of 
Gedaliah  at  Mizpah  seemed  a  providential  confirmation  of  his 
hopes.    Will  it  not  help  us  to  understand  Jeremiah's  attitude, 

«  Azariah.  whose  name  appears  in  Jer.  xlil.  i  by  mistake  as  Jezaniah 
(Sept.  gives  "Azariah").  is  not  mentioned  among  the  captains,  Jer.  xl.  8. 

"  "All  the  proud  men."  The  word  {zedtm)  is  one  which  occurs  re. 
peatedly  in  Psa.  cxix.  (see  the  author's  note  on  v.  ai).  Compare  the  anti« 
thesis  between  restless  pride  and  composed  humility  in  Psa.  cxxxi. 

3  Gentle  Bishop  Ken's  motto  (inhiscopyofGrotius  "  De  Veritate  "). 


"  is 


igi 


JEREMIAH. 


Ml 


i'!i' 


i 

M 


if  we  suppose  that  Baruch  really  did  influence  him  during  this 
period?  The  prophet  does  not  appear  to  have  remonstrated 
with  Gedaliah  for  accepting  the  responsibilities  of  a  vassal 
chieftain,  nor  to  have  given  him  any  prophetic  counsel,  nor  to 
have  received  any  prophetic  warning  of  his  death  :  in  short,  so 
far  as  we  can  see,  his  communion  with  his  God  was  not  as  vivid 
nor  as  direct  as  it  had  been  formerly.  May  we  not  ascribe  this 
to  some  shade  of  human  reason  intervening  between  the  prophet 
and  his  Sun,  and  probably  enough,  to  his  intercourse  with 
Baruch?  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  we  not  only  may,  but 
must ;  and  considering  that  these  chapters,  as  they  stand, 
cannot  be  the  work  of  Jeremiah,  my  loyalty  to  the  prophet 
suggests  the  conjecture  that  Jer.  xlii.  lo  embodies  ideas  for 
which  Baruch  is  chiefly  responsible — Baruch,  whom  the  pro- 
phet has  already  described  as  being  (in  no  ignoble  sense,  of 
course)  ambitious  of  great  things,  and  as  listening  with  a  heavy 
heart  to  the  oracle,  "  I  will  break  down,  and  I  will  pluck  up." 

Angry  as  the  captains  were,  they  made  no  attempt  on  the 
life  either  of  Jeremiah  or  of  Baruch.  They  had  not  that  class- 
jealousy  of  the  prophet  which  doubtless  animated  his  enemies 
in  the  teniple  at  Jerusalem  (Jer.  xxvi.).  They  carried  the 
prophet  with  them  to  Egypt.  If  he  could  not  protect  them 
by  his  presence,  he  should  at  least  share  their  fate.  Beyond 
the  frontier  they  doubtless  found  other  Jewish  fugitives  already 
settled  (Jer.  xxiv.  8),  and  it  would  seem  from  Jer.  xliv.  i  that 
they  separated  into  two  bands,  some  going  to  the  two  northern 
frontier  cities  Migdol  and  Tahpanhes  (inhabited  to  a  great 
extent  by  foreigners),  others  further  south  to  Noph  and 
Pathros  (or  Upper  Egypt).'  From  these  havens  of  rest  they 
looked  with  a  pity  mingled  with  self-satisfaction  on  their  less 

*  Migdol  (comp.  xlvi.  14,  Ezek.  xziz.  zo,  xxx.  6,  R.V.  marg.)  is  the 
Magdolon  of  Herodotus  (ii.  159,  see  above,  p.  96) ;  it  is  also  mentioned  in 
the  Itinerary  of  Antoninus,  as  being  twelve  Roman  miles  from  Pelusium. 
It  derived  its  name  from  one  of  the  forts  connected  by  a  wall  on  the  Asiatic 
frontier.  (This  is  not  the  Migdol  of  Exod.  xiv.  a ;  see  Naville,  "  Pithom," 
p.  35.)  Tahpanhes  is  doubtless  Daphnae  (comp.  Septuagint)  ;  Noph  is 
m«re  probably  Memphis  than  Napata  (comp.  Jer.  ii.  16,  xlvi.  14,  Esek. 
xxx.  13,  16,  z8).  Pathros  (pa  Hathor,  "place  of  the  goddess  Hathor") 
means  first  the  nome  of  Thebes,  and  next  the  whole  of  Upper  Egypt.  Sec 
Eben,  "  Aegypten  und  die  BUcher  Mose's."  L  81-83,  "5>  i^o  !  ^^^  comp. 
Mr.  Stuart  Poole's  excellent  little  volume,  "  The  Cities  of  Egypt."  [At  tba 
last  moment,  I  san  add  Part  II.  of  Mr.  Petrie's  "  Memoir  on  Tanls."] 


f< 

c 
1 
1 


A  PASTOR'S  STRANGE  FAREWELL. 


193 


Ig  this 
strated 
vassal 


fortunate  feIlow>countrymen  in  Judah,  some  of  whom  were  at 
this  moment  perhaps  being  carried  off  by  Nebuzaradan 
out  of  vengeance  for  ihe  recent  outrage  to  the  majesty  of 
Babylon  (Jer.  Hi.  30).  Jeremiah  was  now  at  Tahpanhes.  There 
he  laid  a  fresh  prophetic  burden  on  the  land  of  Egypt,  which 
calls  for  attention  (Jer.  xliii.  8-13).  It  is  introduced  by  another 
specimen  of  sign-speech.  A  prophetic  impulse  bade  him  take 
great  stones  and  imbed  them  in  the  mortar  (not  "clay,"  as 
A.V.)  in  the  pavement  at  the  entry  of  the  royal  palace.  This 
means  that  Nebuchadrezzar,  who  all  men  thought  would  stop 
short  at  the  Palestinian  frontier,  would  soon  set  up  his  throne 
here,  and  from  here  penetrate  into  Egypt,  slay  or  lead  captive 
its  inhabitants,  destroy  its  obelisks  and  temples,  and  go  forth 
from  thence  in  peace.  An  indefatigable  English  explorer  (Mr. 
Flinders  Petrie)  is  the  best  commentator  on  this  "sign-speech" 
of  Jeremiah.  In  the  year  1886  he  found  at  Tell  Defenneh  the 
ruins  of  a  fort  built  by  Psametik  I.,  and  now  called  "  the  palace 
of  the  Jew's  daughter,"  and  could  identify  Jeremiah's  "  pave- 
ment" with  "a  great  open-air  platform  of  brickwork,  a  sort 
of  mastaba^  such  as  is  now  seen  outside  all  great  houses,  and 
most  small  ones,  in  this  country."  *  Little,  however,  he  says, 
is  left  of  the  palace.  But  have  we  gained  as  much  as  some  of 
us  thought  when  the  news  of  this  interesting  discovery  reached 
us  ?  Not  unless  further  corroboration  of  the  details  of  Jere- 
miah's prophecy  comes  from  contemporary  inscriptions.  As 
to  the  burning  of  the  temples  spoken  of  (Jer.  xliii.  12),  that 
of  course  is  a  prophetic  hyperbole,  which  is  simply  useful  as 
giving  us  a  measure  of  the  feeling  which  animated  the  speaker. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  particular  instance  of  Divine  vengeance 
specified  by  the  prophet  is  true  to  fact.  Of  the  obelisks  of  the 
Sun-god's  temple  at  Heliopolis  (in  Egyptian,  "  Pe-Ra  "  or  "  Ra's 
Abode" ;  in  Hebrew, "  Beth-Shemesh  "  or"  House  of  the  Sun"), 
only  one  remains,  to  prove  the  venerable  antiquity  of  the  fallen 
religion.*  But  what  of  Nebuchadrezzar  and  his  desolating  in- 
vasion of  Egypt?  Did  he  erect  his  tribunal  at  Tahpanhes? 
We  shall  return  to  this  later ;  Jeremiah  himself  will  give  us  the 
best  of  opportunities.  But  we  must,  even  here,  carefully  notice 
the  difference  between  this  and  the  other  prophecies  of  the 
calamities  of   Egypt  (Jer.  ix.  25,  26,  xlvi.  2-26),  viz.,  that 

«  "Memoir  on  Tanis,"  Part  IL     " Egypt  Exploration  Fund,"  1888,  p.  s* 
•  Mr.  Stuart  Poole  states  tli&t  "  it  was  set  up  at  least  4000  yrars  ago. ' 

14 


194 


jl:k£Miaii. 


if 


Jeremiah  is  here  thinking  as  much  of  his  fellow-countrymen 
as  of  the  Egyptians.  It  was  by  the  Divine  will  that  Jacob  and 
his  sons  went  down  into  Egypt  ;  but  there  is  no  "  land  oi 
Goshen  "  for  those  who  go  there  of  their  own  will.  When  the 
<*  woe  to  Egypt "  is  fulfilled,  let  not  the  foreign  refugees  expect 
to  be  mere  spectators.  "  Death,  captivity,  and  sword  "  in  Jer. 
xliii.  1 1  correspond  to  "  sword,  famine,  and  pestilence  "  in  Jer. 
xlii.  17 ;  comp.  xliv.  12-14. 

The  last  discourse  of  Jeremiah  which  is  preserved  to  us 
(chap,  xliv.)  is  in  several  respects  an  interesting  one.  We 
might  have  thought  that  the  change  of  the  old  order  of 
things  would  have  brought  some  peace  and  quiet  to  the 
harassed  prophet.  But  no— the  great  Huguenot's  motto,  rep9S 
aWeurSf  might  have  been  Jeremiah's.  Not  yet  could  he  put 
off  Elijah's  mantle ;  the  close  of  his  ministry  was  to  be  as  full 
of  rejected  calls  to  repentance  as  the  beginning.  No  more 
bright  and  original  ideas,  but  sad  reminiscences  of  a  past 
which  must  have  seemed  to  Jeremiah  far  more  distant  than  it 
really  was.  Must  we  not  admire  him  for  thus  calmly  resuming 
his  thank!ess  task,  and  renewing  offers  only  too  sure  to  be 
despised  r  Where  the  scene  of  the  prophecy  is  laid,  and 
what  was  its  occasion,  wo  shall  see  presently.  It  falls  into 
five  sections.  In  verses  2-10  Jeremiah  reminds  his  hearers 
of  the  terrible  judgment  upon  Judah.  Surely  this  part  of  the 
discourse  at  any  rate  must  have  been  modified  by  the  hand 
of  Baruch,  for  the  description  of  the  state  of  Judah  is  a  very 
exaggerated  one.'  Suicidal,  continues  the  prophet,  is  the 
conduct  of  the  refugees  in  continuing  their  polytheistic  prac- 
tices even  after  such  a  warning.  How  contrite  they  ought  to 
be  1  With  what  trembling  hope  they  ought  to  approach 
Jehovah,  remembering  that  with  thee  there  is  forgiveness^  in 
order  that  thou  mayest  be  feared.  But  what  a  different  tale 
is  told  by  these  unmoved  countenances  (see  Jer.  xliv.  10) ! 

In  verses  1 1-14,  the  doom  already  proclaimed  (Jer.  xlii.)  is 
repeated  with  a  terrible  particularity.    Did  Jeremiah  really  use 

■  We  are  only  told  that  the  citizens  of  Mizpah  and  their  families  went  to 
Egypt ;  the  farmers  (as  we  should  call  them)  of  whom  Jer.  xxxix.  10,  xL  10, 
spoJcs  remained  to  cultivate  the  soil,  and  kept  certain  ' '  cities  "  from  abso- 
lute desolation.  In  a  subsequent  passage  (Jer.  xliv.  22)  the  exaggeration  is 
■till  stronger,  unless  "without  inhabitant"  be  an  intc-polation  (see  Sep- 
tuagint). 


A  pastor's  strange  farewell. 


«95 


tn 


these  words  ?  Or  may  we  not  ascribe  some  of  them,  as  well  as 
the  parallel  expressions  in  chap,  xlii.,  to  the  editor,  Baruch  ?  I 
for  my  part  can  with  difficulty  realize  the  relapse  of  Jeremiah 
into  his  old,  too  vehement  manner,  considering  the  Pisgah-view 
which  he  has  taken  of  a  better  and  happier  age.  The  section 
concludes  with  the  words,  /or  none  but  (single)  escaped  ones 
shall  return  (comp.  v.  28).  At  this  point  an  explanatory 
statement  is  inserted,  with  reference  to  the  speech  of  the  Jews 
which  follows.  Isaiah  at  the  close  of  two  of  his  greatest  pro- 
phecies (Isa.  iii.  i6-iv.  i,  xxxii.  9-12)  turns  to  the  women, 
"  gathered,  we  may  suppose,  at  a  little  distance  from  the  rest, 
and  testifying  their  indifference." '  So  Jeremiah  appears  to  have 
done — at  least  he  distinctly  addresses  his  answer  (t/v.  21-30) 
to  the  women  who  had  boldly  addressed  him  as  well  as  to  the 
men.    This  is  the  note  in  question, — 

Then  all  the  men  who  knew  that  their  wives  burned  incense 
unto  other  gods^  and  all  the  women  who  were  standing  by,  a 
great  assembly^  even  all  the  people  who  dwelt  in  the  land  oj 
Egypty  in  PathroSy  answered  Jeremiah  (Jer.  xliv.  15). 

'•  Great  assembly  "  (comp.  i  Kings  viii.  65)  is  clearly  a  reli- 
gious phrase ;  these  men  and  women  had  resorted  to  som^^ 
central  place  in  Upper  Egypt  to  celebrate  the  worship  of 
the  "  queen  of  heaven."  Not  an  encouraging  circumstance 
for  Jeremiah,  some  one  may  say.  No,  truly  ;  he  carried 
his  life  in  his  hand,  and  thought  perhaps  of  that  other 
"  assembly "  (Jer.  xxvi.  17)  when  he  had  had  such  a  hair- 
breadth escape  from  danger.  He  now  ventured  again  before 
a  crowd  of  religious  enthusiasts,  who  had  not  indeed  cast 
off  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (see  especially  verse  26),  but  had 
placed  other  gods  beside  the  true  God  of  Israel.  They  were 
among  those  who  had  taken  the  Deuteronomic  Torah  in  its 
most  obvious  but  not  its  highest  sense.  And  the  consequence  of 
recent  events  was  a  strong  reaction  in  their  minds  against  the 
God  who,  in  His  impotence,  as  it  seemed,  had  let  them  be 
driven  out  of  their  own  land.  Jehovah  had  promised  pros- 
perity, they  said,  to  those  who  observed  the  Law  ;  they  had 
observed  it,  and  see  what  the  result  had  been.  They  must 
now,  in  common  prudence,  revert  to  those  old  idolatries  which 
Deuteronomy  had  forbidden,  and  especially  to  the  worship  of 
that  gracious  divinity,  the  "queen  of  heaven."  And  who  was 
■  "  The  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,"  i.  186. 


I 


I 


196 


JEREMIAH. 


h  1 


the  "queen  of  heaven  *'?   We  must  first  of  all  see  the  Issue 

of  the  controversy. 

As  for  the  word  thail  thou  hast  spoken  unto  us  in  Jehovah* s 
name,  we  will  not  hearken  unto  thee :  but  we  will  perform  all  our 
promises  to  burn  incense  unto  the  queen  of  heaven,  and  to  pour  out 
drink  offerings  unto  her,  as  we  did,  we  and  our  fathers,  our  kings 
and  our  princes,  in  the  cities  ofjudah,  and  in  the  streets  ofjeru- 
salem,  and  so  we  were  satisfied  with  bread,  and  were  hapPy,  and 
saw  no  evil.  But  since  we  left  off  burning  incense  to  ihe  queen 
of  heaven,  and  pouring  out  drink  offerings  unto  her,  we  have 
wanted  all  things,  and  have  per  'shed  by  sword  and  famine. 

Let  us  not  be  too  severe  on  tLese  unhappy  men.  At  any  rate, 
they  are  in  some  sense  patriots  ;  the  fate  which  has  befallen 
so  many  of  their  countrymen  they  make,  by  sympathy,  their 
own.  It  is  probable  enough,  from  the  prominence  given  to  the 
women,  that  the  wives  had  really  been  all  along  hankering 
after  this  feminine  cultus,  in  the  rites  of  which  they  were,  by  old 
custom,  important  persons.  (Is  it  not  the  fact  that  women 
are  everywhere  a  conservative  religious  influence  ?)  But  see, 
one  of  the  women  steps  forward  to  speak  to  Jeremiah,  who 
may  perhaps  suppose  that  they  forced  their  wishes  on  their 
unwilling  husbands.  Not  so.  Jf  we  bum  incense  to  the  queen 
of  heaven,  and  pour  out  drink  offerings  unto  her,  is  it  without 
our  husbands  that  we  have  prepared  cakes  for  her  to  pourtray 
her,  and  poured  out  drink  offerings  unto  hert 

Verses  20-23  foi"ni  the  third  section  of  the  prophecy.  The 
prophet  himself  puts  his  own  point  as  forcibly  as  possible  in  r. 
23.  Because  ye  burned  incense  .  .  .  therefore  this  evil  happened 
unto  you  {v.  23).  He  admits  the  facts,  but  interprets  them  in 
a  diametrically  opposite  sense.  By  so  doing,  he  shows  how 
hopeless  it  was  to  make  any  progress  along  the  traditional 
lines  of  Jewish  religious  thought.  That  true  piety  must  lead 
to  earthly  prosperity,  ws.s  an  illusion  which  had  become  posi* 
tively  harmful.  Jeremiah  knew  this,  but  had  not  the  power  to 
set  it  forth  in  a  logical  manner ;  and  yet  it  was  a  logical 
explanation  which  was  imperatively  called  for  by  the  circum- 
stances.  And  so  in  the  fourth  section  (verses  24-28)  he 
endeavours  to  make  up  for  his  logical  deficiency  by  expressing 
more  eainestly  than  ever  his  prophetic  intuition  that  Jehovah 
cannot  permit  such  insults  to  the  higher  and  the  only  true 
view  of  His  "  name "  or  essential  nature  to  pass  unpunished. 


Bi 

pr 
th 
th 
HI 
o 


A  pastor's  strange  parbweli* 


197 


Itfaa 

Hour 

*roul 

\kings 

and 

jueen 
have 


Behold^  I  swear  by  my  great  name,  no  more  shall  my  name  b* 
pronounced  by  the  mouth  of  any  man  of  Judah  that  saith  "  By 
the  life  of  the  Lord  Jehovah/'  Such  is  the  oracle ;  it  means 
that  all  the  Jewish  refugees  shall  perish  but  a  very  small 
number  (comp.  v.  14),  who  shall  have  t  take  refuge  in  their 
old  land  (v.  28).  Never  did  Jeremiah  (if  the  report  be  correct) 
commit  himself  more  definitely  to  the  literal  fulfilment  of  a 
prediction  than  now.  He  knows  the  Jewish  fondness  for 
"  signs,"  and  so,  that  his  opponents  may  recognize  him  as  a  true 
seer  of  the  future,  he  offers  them  two  "  signs."  First,  those 
few  who  do  ultimately  escape  shall  know  by  sad  experience 
whose  word  standeth,  mine,  or  theirs  {v.  28).  Next,  to  quote 
the  prophet's  own  words  in  the  last  section.  Behold,  I  give 
Pharaoh  Hophra  king  of  Egvpt  into  the  hand  of  his  enemies, 
and  into  the  hand  of  them  that  seek  his  life,  as  I  gave  Zedekiah 
king  of  Judah  into  the  hand  of  Nebuchadrezzar  king  of 
Babylon,  his  enemy,  and  that  sought  his  life  {v.  30). 

One  cannot  but  be  distressed,  first,  that  Jeremiah  in  spite  of 
himself  accepted  the  old  "  tendency  argument " ;  and  next, 
that  he  staked  his  prophetic  character  on  the  circumstantial 
fulfilment  of  certain  predictions.  The  argument  was  of  course 
inconclusive ;  the  circumstantial  fulfilment,  even  if  it  can  be 
proved,  cannot  now  contribute — did  it  indeed  ever  greatly  con- 
tribute?— to  increase  the  influence  of  Jeremiah.  Granting 
that  we  find  a  prediction  in  Jeremiah  of  some  event  which 
actually  took  place,  yet  how  easy  it  is  for  a  prophet  or  his 
editor  to  manufacture  predictions  after  the  event.  And  how 
difficult  it  is  to  prove  such  fulfilments.  It  appears  certain 
that  Jeremiah's  and  Ezekiel's  prediction  of  the  Babylonian 
conquest  of  Tyre  (Jer.  xxv.  22,  xxvii.  3,  xlvii.  4  ;  Ezek.  xxvi.  i- 
xxviii.  19)  was  not  ratified  by  the  event ;  Ezekiel  himself  seems 
to  say  as  much  (Ezek.  xxix.  17-21).  Is  it  probable,  so  a 
rationalist  might  well  argue,  that  the  conquest  of  a  country 
like  Egypt  should  have  been  really  foreseen  in  its  details  by 
Hebrew  prophets  ?  I  think  that  from  the  highest  point  of  view 
prophecy  neither  gains  nor  loses  by  having  received  a  circum- 
stantial fulfilment ;  the  moral  and  spiritual  element  is  that  by 
which  alone  it  lives.  Let  me  not  then  be  thought  biassed  by 
theology  if  I  hold,*  in  opposition  to  M.  Maspero,  that  in  all 
essentia  points  the  prophetic  references  to  a  Babylonian  con* 

■  Set  my  discussion  of  this  question  in  "  The  Pulpit  CommentMr*" 


I9S 


JEREMIAH. 


mi  i 


quest  of  Egypt  are  accurate.  Putting  ♦ogether  two  cuneiform 
records  and  a  hieroglyphic  inscription,  it  appears  that  in  hii 
37th  year  Nebuchadrezzar  penetrated  into  Egypt  as  farasSyene. 
There  he  was  met  and  repulsed  by  the  Egyptian  troops  (comp. 
Ei;ck.  xxix.  lo).  Two  years  later  the  Babylonians  renewed  the 
invasion,  and  by  their  complete  success  forced  Egypt  to  pay 
tribute.  It  has  not  however  been  shown  (see  Herod,  ii.  169) 
that  Hophra  (the  old  ally  of  Zcdekiah)  was  slain  by  the  Baby< 
lonians,  though  this  seems  almost  required,  if  Jer.  xliv.  30  is  to 
have  the  character  of  a  "  sign." 

Certainly  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  spoke  a  true  "  word  of  the 
Lord"  when  they  uttered  these  prophecies.  What  sufficient 
moral  safeguards  had  these  ancient  states?  A  temporary 
exception  may  be  made  for  Babylon,  the  religion  of  which, 
with  all  its  imperfections,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  a  noble  one. 
But  of  all  the  communities  of  that  time  the  most  miserable 
was  this  Jewish  one  in  Egypt.  Less  endowed  with  physical 
advantages,  it  was  also,  through  the  operation  of  causes  which 
we  have  studied,  at  a  lower  moral  and  spiritual  level  than  any 
other.  In  the  religion  of  Babylon  at  any  rate  there  were 
elements  akin  to  that  of  the  prophets  and  psalmists.  Even 
the  worship  of  the  "  queen  of  heaven  "  may  in  some  countries 
have  had  a  moral  tinge  ;  but  it  was  not  so  among  the  Jews  of 
Pathros.  The  children  gathered  wood,  the  fathers  kindled  the 
fire,  the  women  kneaded  the  dough,  to  make  sacrificial  cakes, 
as  they  had  done  in  Jehoiakim's  time  (Jer.  vii.  18),  simply  as  a 
propitiatory  rite  which  would  keep  off  sword  and  pestilence. 
Who  was  the  "  queen  of  heaven  "  ? '  Was  she  the  moon  ?  or 
the  planet  known  to  the  Babylonians  as  Istar  and  to  ourselves 
as  Venus  (not  the  masculine  deity  referred  to  in  Isa.  xiv.  12, 
but  the  feminine)  ?  Some  have  preferred  the  former,  remind- 
ing us  that  cakes  were  offered  to  Artemis  at  the  Eleusinian 
Mysteries.    But  Wellhausen  has  pointed  out"  that  a  similar 

»  See  Schrader's  paper  in  the  "Transactions  of  the  Berlin  Academy," 
1886,  pp.  477-491 ;  Kuenen,  "  De  Melecheth  des  Hetnels  "  (Amsterdam, 
1888)  ;  and  articles  by  Stade  in  his  "  Zeitschrift,"  1886,  pp.  123-132,  289- 
339  ;  and  comp.  Norris,  "Assyrian  Dictionary,"  i.  86.  "Melecheth"  is 
doubtless  wrongly  vocalized  ;  the  punctuators  explained  the  whole  phrase 
"  (God's)  work  in  the  heaven  "  (comp.  Gen.  ii.  x.  3).  They  meant  the 
Htariy  host. 

•  "  Skizcen  und  Vorarbelten,"  iii.  38,  39.  The  worship  of  different 
planetary  divinities  was  widely  spread  nmnnp  the  Arabian  tribes. 


A  pastor's  strange  farewell. 


199 


neifomi 

t  in  his 
Syene. 
(comp. 

ived  the 

to  pay 

ii.  169} 

Baby. 

30  is  to 


rite  formed  part  of  the  cultus  of  the  Arabian  goddess  al-Uzza 
(Venus),  and  Kuenen  that  in  the  Targum  of  the  prophetical 
books  the  Hebrew  phrase  is  rendered  "  star  (fern.)  of  heaven," 
i.e.  the  planet  Venus,  while  Isaac  of  Antioch,  who  wrote  in  the 
same  century  (the  fifth  a.d.)  in  which  that  Targum  was  finally 
shaped,  infers  from  this  passage  of  Jeremiah  that  the  Jews 
sacrificed  to  "the  Star"  (which  he  identifies  with  the  Arabian 
al'Uzza  or  Venus).'  Finally,  Schrader  has  given  evidence  that 
the  Assyrians  called  the  feminine  Istar  malkatu  "queen,"  and 
that  in  Assurbanipal's  reign  {i.e.  not  so  long  before  Jeremiah's 
prophecy)  the  northern  Arabs  worshipped  a  deity  called  Atar* 
samain  \i.e.  Atar  *  of  heaven). 

It  is  a  tempting  theme  which  Jeremiah's  last  prophecy  suggests 
to  us.  Many  writers  have  dealt  already  with  the  "  vestiges  of 
ancient  manners  and  customs  discoverable "  ^  in  Christen- 
dom. The  phrase  "  Regina  Coeli "  can  now  be  dealt  with  as 
one  of  these  "vestiges"  with  more  fulness  than  before.  It 
belongs  not  only  to  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  to  the  Ephesian 
Artemis,  but  in  the  Semitic  countries  (probably)  to  the  goddess 
of  the  Moon  and  of  Venus.  Yes ;  it  is  a  tempting  study,  and 
if  pursued  a  little  farther,  might  lead  us  to  sympathize  in  some 
sense  with  the  myth-makers.  Why,  then,  did  Jeremiah  hat< 
the  "queen  of  heaven"?  Because  these  fair  but  inwardly 
exhausted  mythologies  did  dishonour  to  Him  who  is  the  true 
•'king  of  heaven"  (Dan.  iv.  37),  and  of  whom  it  was  said, 
HeaTf  O  Israel:  Jehovah  our  God  is  one  Jehovah  (Deut. 
vi.  4). 

■  To  the  passages  from  St  Isaac  cited  by  Kuenen,  add  Carm.  x.  v.  343 
(Bickell  i.  aao,  aai),  where  boys  and  girls  are  said  to  have  been  sacrificed 
to  "the Star." 

*  Atar  is  the  Assyrian  Istar.    See  Schrader's  note  on  Jer.  vii.  z8. 

3 1  quote  from  the  title  of  an  early  work  by  Prof^  J.  J.  Blunt,  of  Cam* 
bridfi. 


1 


CHAPTER  VII. 


PER  CRUCEM  AD  LUCBll 


Legendary  accounts  of  Jeremiah's  death— His  suflurings  and  cenpentth 
tions— Jeremiah  compared  with  Milton  and  Savonarola — ^The  apriaf 
foreseen  by  the  Israelite  and  the  Italian  still  future. 


The  heathen  festival  proceeds.  But  where  is  the  grieved,  the 
broken-hearted  protester?  What  was  the  prophet's  subse- 
quent history  ?  When  Nebuchadrezzar  conquered  Egypt,  did 
he,  as  some  later  Jewish  writers  say,  carry  Jeremiah  and 
Baruch  with  him  to  Babylon  ?  Or,  as  a  Christian  legend, 
possibly  referred  to  in  Heb.  xi.  37,  asserts,  was  he  stoned  to 
death  at  Tahpanhes  by  his  unbelieving  people  ?  Certainly  the 
latter  is  psychologically  a  probable  view  of  Jeremiah's  closing 
scene.  Once  and  again,  when  death  star^J  him  in  the  face, 
Jehovah  had  *'  hidden  "  Jeremiah  ;  but  why  should  Providence 
baffle  the  designs  of  his  persecutors,  now  that  his  work  was 
done,  and  their  malice  could  but  add  fresh  flowers  to  the  faith- 
ful servant's  crown  ?  His  God  "  hid  "  him  this  time  in  a  far 
more  secret  place,  if  we  may  trust  our  sense  of  the  fitness  of 
things.  Already  (see  p.  112)  I  have  invited  my  readers  to 
follow  this  legend.  Already  the  narrative  of  St.  Stephen*! 
martyrdom  has  helped  us  to  imagine  how — 


•    •    •    • 


some  strong  pathetfe 
Face  of  a  wounded  prophet  gazed,  and  lliaii 

Sank  in  God's  darkness  grandly 
From  out  the  infinite  littleness  of  men,** ' 


*  Alexander,  "  Death  of  the  Eail  of  DeAf.' 


PER  CRUCEM  AD  LUCEM. 


80I 


and  to  infer  the  feelings  of  Jeremiah.  May  we  venture  on  a 
still  bolder  step,  and,  with  the  great  Jewish  scholar  Saadya 
(who  died  942  A.D.)  and  with  the  versatile  statesman-critic 
Bunsen,  consider  Isa.  lii.  13-liii.  Israel's  penitent  confession  of 
its  guilt  in  having  slain  this  great  teacher  ?  Certainly  Jeremiah 
likens  himself  to  the  gentle  lamb  that  is  led  to  the  slaughter 
(xi.  19),  and  might,  even  by  one  who  knew  his  slight  regard 
for  the  sacrificial  system,  have  been  called  metaphorically  a 
sacrifice  for  his  people.  But  to  me  it  seems  clear  that  if  a 
historical  martyr  is  referred  to  in  that  great  monologue,  it  must 
be  some  one  who  was  judicially  murdered,  an '.  whose  death 
was  remembered  afterwards.  Jeremiah's  death  was  forgotten  ; 
to  indeed  Isaiah's  had  been.  At  an  earlier  age  some  prose* 
poet  might  have  projected  from  his  divinely  illumined  imagina- 
tion chariots  and  horses  of  fire  to  carry  them  up  to  heaven ; 
and  at  a  later  period  the  rising  Church  would  have  chronicled 
the  minutest  facts  of  the  "  new  births  "  of  such  heroes  of  faith. 
Their  earthly  fame  suffers ;  but  dear  shall  their  blood  be  in 
his  sight. 

*'In  Jeremiah,"  as  the  most  sympathetic  of  critical  inter* 
preters  has  said,  "  the  kingdom  lost  the  most  human  prophet 
it  ever  possessed.  His  heavy  sorrows  and  despair,  his  noble 
yet  fruitless  struggles,  and  his  fall,  were  those  of  prophetism, 
and,  so  far  as  prophetism  constituted  the  inmost  life  of  the 
ancient  state,  of  the  state  itself.  If  any  pure  soul  could  still 
save  the  state,  that  soul  was  Jeremiah's,  whose  period  of 
greatest  vigour  fell  in  these  three  and  twenty  years  of  its  dying 
agony:  but  even  for  the  noblest  of  the  prophets  the  time 
was  now  gone  by;  and  the  last  great  prophet,  and  all  the 
remains  of  the  ancient  kingdom  of  Israel,  which  had  been 
preserved  amid  the  storms  of  centuries,  were  engulfed  in  a 
common  ruin."  *  Three  and  twenty  years,  however,  is  not  the 
whole  duration  of  Jeremiah's  career.  He  saw  not  only  the 
dying  agony,  but  the  last  stage  of  the  disease  which  prepared 
that  agony.  If  he  was  martyred  five  years  after  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem,  and  if  he  began  to  prophesy  in  the  thirteenth  year 
of  Josiah's  reigr,  we  get  forty-four  years  as  the  duration  of  his 
ministry,  so  that  his  age  at  his  death  cannot  be  less  (comn. 
Jer.  i.  6)  than  sixty-four.  He  was  therefore  an  old  man,  and  ». 
comparison  of  his  glimpse  of  the  "  new  covenant "  to  the  prospic; 

'  Ewald,  "  History  of  Israel,"  iv.  249. 


302 


JEREMIAH. 


I 

I 


111 


ir 

let: 


which  Moses  enjoyed  upon  Nebo  is  justified.  "  Few  and  evil " 
were  his  days.  Nor  had  he  the  blessing  which  Israelites  prized 
so  dearly — a  wife  and  children  (Jer.  xvi.  2),  in  this  respect  less 
favoured  than  Moses.  But  can  we  say  1  hat  his  sun  went  down 
in  unmitigated  gloom  ?  Had  he  no  compensations  but  his  post- 
humous influence  and  his  early  friendships  ?  Surely  he  had,  if, 
"  speaking  as  a  man,"  the  Saviour  had  any.  Jesus,  too,  was  old 
in  experience  and  perhaps  in  countenance  (John  viii.  57),  and 
was  without  the  closest  of  earthly  ties.  Jesus,  too,  was,  except 
by  a  few  friends,  "despised  and  rejected."  Still  the  Saviour 
had  not  only  *' unknown  griefs,"  but  unknown  comforts — 
the  joy  that  ivas  set  before  hint^  and  Jeremiah,  I  think, 
must  in  some  dim  way  have  enjoyed  a  similar  spiritual 
happiness.  Yes  ;  Jeremiah  is  not  unfitly  called  a  "  type,"  an 
unfinished  sketch  as  it  were,  of  the  unique,  the  incomparable 
One.  It  is  true  that  oniy  once '  does  he  (perhaps)  refer  to  a 
personal  Saviour  of  Israel,  and  even  then  he  uses  a  symbolic 
expression  which  circumstances  were  proving  to  be  "'holly  inade- 
quate  to  its  object.  But  if  he  did  not  predict  the  true  Christ 
in  words,  he  did  so  by  his  life.  Rightly  did  the  Crusaders 
erect  a  church  at  their  Anathoth  dedicated  to  Saint  Jeremiah.* 
It  is  true  the  later  Jews  had  in  their  fashion  already  canonized 
him  (see  the  touching  narrative  in  2  Mace,  xv.,  and  notice  the 
homage  paid  to  him  in  the  land  of  his  martyrdom  by  Philo '). 

A  long  characterization  of  our  prophet  is  needless.  If  this 
book  does  nut  present  a  living,  growing  character,  it  has  missed 
its  aim.  I  have  no  space  to  speak  of  his  literary  merits,  which 
have  been  depreciated  perhaps  somewhat  too  much.  He  was 
not  an  artist  in  words  ;  he  is  given  to  repetition  and  the  use  of 
stereotyped  formulae  ;  he  is  too  often  diffuse  and  always  imita- 

*  Jeremiah  has  but  one  undoubted  reference  (xxiii.  5)  to  royalty  as  the 
organ  of  God's  future  government  of  His  people— it  is  the  famous  prophecy 
of  the  "Shoot"  or  perhaps  "Shoots"  (».*.,  either  a  Davidic  king  or  a 
succession  of  Davidic  icings).  This  shows  that,  while  on  the  one  hand 
Jeremiah  will  not  neglect  the  symbol  of  his  gifted  predecessor,  he  is  fully 
conscious  of  its  inadequacy  in  the  decadence  of  the  royal  houre.  As  for 
Jer.  xxxiii.  14-26,  it  is  extremely  probable  that  it  is  an  accreiion  on  the 
text.    It  is  not  contained  in  the  Septuagint 

*  Their  Anathoth  was  Karyet  el-'£nab  (on  which  see  p,  zaz,  note  a). 
The  church  (now  in  the  possession  of  the  French)  b  one  of  the  most 
interesting  in  Palestine. 

>  See  Drummond,  "  Philo  Judxus,"  f.  i& 


PER  CRUCEM  AD  LUCEM. 


SOJ 


tlve.  But  how  could  he  soar,  when  there  was  so  much  to 
depress  his  imagination  ?  He  at  any  rate  can  touch  the  heart, 
and  is  free  from  affectation.  His  greatest  poem  is  his  own 
fascinating  character.  In  the  earlier  chapters  I  have  taken 
much  pains  to  detect  the  germs  of  subsequent  developments  ; 
I  must  not  repeat  myself.  Suffice  it  here  to  mention  two  persons 
with  whom  Jeremiah  may  be  profitably  compared. 

The  first  is  our  own  Milton,  whose  greatness  both  as  a  poet 
and  as  a  public  man  is  so  inextricably  connected  with  his 
fervent  spiritual  religion.  There  have  been  few  who  could 
more  fully  enter  into  Jeremiah's  first  chapter  than  Milton  (from 
whom  the  motto  for  my  own  opening  chapter  is  taken),  or  who 
have  equally  experienced  that  loneliness  which  fell  upon  Jere- 
miah when,  as  Wellhausen  puts  it,  "  the  true  Israel  was  nar- 
rowed to  himsel£" '  Neither  was  wholly  free  from  the  bitterness 
of  strife,  but  to  neither  was  refused  an  emancipating  heavenly 
vision.  A  literary  critic  has  recently  said  that  "the  love  of 
country  in  its  most  creative  and  passionate  form  was  the  out- 
come of  Puritanism;"*  but  the  same  passionate  spiritual 
ardour  which  we  find  in  the  patriotism  of  the  Puritans  existed 
long  before  in  that  of  Jeremisdi. 

But  at  the  dose  of  his  ministry  I  would  rather  compare 
Jeremiah  with  one  who  was  mighty  both  in  words  and  in  deeds 
(Acts  vii.  22),  and  whom  a  sympathetic  poetess  has  painted 
perhaps  more  truly  than  her  sister-artist  in  prose**    Need  I 

mention  his  name? 

". . . .  ThiswMha^ 
Savonarola,  who,  while  Peter  sank 
With  his  whole  boat-load,  cried  courageous^, 

•  Wake,  Christ ;  wake,  Christ  I ' 
Who  also  by  a  princely  deathbed  cried, 

*  Loose  Florence,  or  God  will  not  loose  thy  aoiil  I* 
Then  fell  back  the  Magnificent  and  died 
Beneath  the  star-look  shooting  from  the  cowl. 
Which  turned  to  wormwood-bitterness  the  wide 
Deep  sea  of  his  ambitions." 


■  **  Eneyclopsedia  Britannica,"  xiii.  417A 
*  Spectator,  June  16, 1888  (review  of  Mr.  Harrison's  "  Cromwell  *\ 
s  Mr.  G.  W.  Cooke  well  remarks  that  George  Eliot's  Savonarola  Is 
"always  much  more  of  an  altruist  than  of  a  Christian."  Prof.  Creighton, 
I  think,  would  reject  the  version  of  Lorenzo  de'  Medici's  death  accepted  by 
Mrs.  Browning.  But  the  general  impression  given  by  the  abovs  lines  is,  I 
hope,  coirect. 


204 


JEREMIAH. 


i 


I  admit  that  Jeremiah  had  not  the  hopefulness  described  in 
the  opening  lines ;  Jerusalem  was  a  less  promising  field  of 
work  than,  with  all  its  faults,  Florence  was  in  the  age  of 
Lorenzo.  But  do  not  the  closing  lines  give  almost  a  reflexion 
of  Jeremiah's  attitude  towards  Jehoiakim  ?  Savonarola  had,  I 
suppose,  a  richer  nature  than  Jeremiah.  In  him  several  of  the 
old  Hebrew  prophets  seemed  united.  He  had  the  scathing 
indignation  of  Amos,  and  the  versatility  of  Isaiah,  as  well  as 
the  tenderness  of  Jeremiah.  He  differs  most  from  the  latter  in 
two  respects — in  his  emphatic  reassertion  of  the  principle  of 
theocratic  legislation,  and  in  his  ultra-supematuralistic  theory 
of  prophecy,  which  disturbed  the  simplicity  of  his  faith  in  his 
own  inspiration.  Again  and  again,  however,  in  his  latter  days, 
his  preaching  reminds  us  of  Jeremiah's.  "  Your  sins,"  he  cries 
to  the  Florentines,  "  make  me  a  prophet.  .  .  .  And  if  ye  will 
not  hear  my  words,  I  say  unto  you  that  I  will  be  the  prophet 
Jeremiah,  who  foretold  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and 
bewailed  it  when  destroyed."  Like  Jeremiah,  he  had  many  a 
sore  inward  struggle  ;  "  an  inward  fire,"  he  says,  "  consumeth 
my  bones  (comp.  Jer.  xx.  9),  and  compelleth  me  to  speak." 
Like  Jeremiah,  he  was  no  respecter  of  persons ;  he  fought 
bravely,  and  outwardly  at  least  was  defeated.  Like  Jeremiah, 
he  foresaw  the  end  of  the  struggle.  "  If  you  ask  me  in 
general" — so  he  said,  shortly  before  he  was  burned  at  the 
stake,  in  the  convent-church  of  ^t.  Mark's — "  as  to  the  issue  of 
this  struggle,  I  reply,  Victory.  If  you  ask  me  in  a  particular 
sense,  I  reply.  Death.  For  the  master  who  wields  the  hammer, 
when  he  has  used  it,  throws  it  away.  So  He  did  with  Jeremidh^ 
whom  He  caused  to  be  stoned  at  the  end  of  his  ministry.  But 
Rome  will  not  put  out  this  fire,  and  if  this  be  put  outj,  God  will 
light  another,  and  indeed  it  is  already  lighted  everywhere,  only 
they  perceive  it  not." 

It  was  wint2r  both  in  Jeremiah's  time  and  in  Savonarola's. 
Which  was  the  more  favoured  of  these  two  heralds  of  spring  ? 
/  think,  Jeremiah,  because  his  prophecy  of  spring  was  fulfilled, 
after  a  brief  interval,  to  his  own  people.  Not  so  fortunate  was 
Savonarola.  Germany,  France,  and  England— not  Italy — 
were  the  theatre  of  the  promised  Reformation.  Italy  still 
waits.  Still  Jeremiah's  advantage  was  not  so  great  as  it  might 
teem.  Israel  had  indeed  its  bright  spring  (thanks  to  the 
Second  Isaiah),  and  its  disappointing  but  still  brilliant  summer 


(tl 
wi 

7^ 

pa 
th 
m 
fa 
ai 
fo 
tl 
w 

II 
1 


: 


PER  CRUCEM  AD  LUCEM. 


205 


)ed  in 
feld  of 

ige  of 
Iflexion 
I  had,  I 

of  the 
[athing 


(thanks  to  Ezra),  but  it  passed  only  too  quickly  into  another 
winter.  Israel  waits  again,  and  seems  to  say,  How  long^ 
Jehovah^  wilt  thou  forget  me  for  evert  But  why  be  im- 
patient ?  Winter  is  not  death.  We  know  that  there  is  a  real 
though  concealed  life  around  us  in  the  winter-time,  and  that 
mighty  forces  are  at  work,  which  will  restore  to  us  first,  spring's 
fair  promise,  then  summer's  fulness  of  growth,  and  then 
autumn's  golden  fruitage.  And  we  know  that  mighty  spiritual 
forces  are  at  work  in  Israel  and  among  the  Italians,  and  that, 
though  not  with  the  voice  of  Jeremiah  or  of  Savonarola,  yet 
with  such  power  as  God  has  given  them  Israelitish  and 
Italian  reformers  are  continuing  the  work  of  those  prophets  ia 
Italy  and  Israel.    True  sons  of  the  prophets  are  they-^ 


«* 


mea.  whose  spirit-flbarpened  liglit 
the  adTent  of  tiie  light." 


'■('A 


only 


